Re: [PATCH v5 6/8] iio: light: stk3310: use dev_err_probe where possible

[Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>]

On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 16:47:44 +0200
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 08, 2025 at 04:13:24PM -0500, Aren Moynihan wrote:
> > Using dev_err_probe instead of dev_err and return makes the errors  
> 
> Use dev_err_probe()
> dev_err()
> 
> > easier to understand by including the error name, and saves a little
> > code.  
> 
> I believe this patch will make more sense before switching to local 'dev'
> variable. Then the previous one will have an additional justification as
> the "struct device *dev = ...;" lines in some cases will be added already
> by this patch.

I'm not sure I follow this one comment.
The only line that has struct device *dev =  added in this patch is
replacing an existing client->dev lookup that could have been pushed
to previous patch if this patch ordering was maintained.

For dev_err() to dev_err_probe() the number of references to dev
is the same after all. The only additional justification this patch
makes is some longer lines that using a local dev pointer shortens
again.

> 
> ...
> 
> >  	indio_dev = devm_iio_device_alloc(dev, sizeof(*data));
> > -	if (!indio_dev) {
> > -		dev_err(&client->dev, "iio allocation failed!\n");
> > -		return -ENOMEM;
> > -	}
> > +	if (!indio_dev)
> > +		return dev_err_probe(dev, -ENOMEM, "iio allocation failed!\n");  
> 
> We don't issue the messages for -ENOMEM.
> 
> If it's in the current code, add a new patch to drop this message and return an
> error code directly.
I'd be fine with that dev_err() dropped in this patch as long as the
description mentions it.
> 
> ...
> 
> > +	if (ret < 0)  
> 
> Perhaps, while at it, drop these ' < 0' parts where they are not hinting about
> anything.

That would be a separate patch and indeed makes sense to me as well.

Jonathan

> 
> > +		return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "device_register failed\n");  
>