Re: [PATCH v3 2/9] i2c: mlxbf: Use dev_err_probe in probe function

[Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@kernel.org>]

Hi Krzysztof,

On Tue, Aug 08, 2023 at 01:31:31PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 08/08/2023 13:29, Andi Shyti wrote:
> > Hi Krzysztof,
> > 
> > On Tue, Aug 08, 2023 at 10:36:40AM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> >> On 08/08/2023 03:29, Liao Chang wrote:
> >>> Use the dev_err_probe function instead of dev_err in the probe function
> >>> so that the printed messge includes the return value and also handles
> >>> -EPROBE_DEFER nicely.
> >>>
> >>> Reviewed-by: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@kernel.org>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Liao Chang <liaochang1@huawei.com>
> >>
> >> ...
> >>
> >>> @@ -2413,10 +2399,8 @@ static int mlxbf_i2c_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>>  	ret = devm_request_irq(dev, irq, mlxbf_i2c_irq,
> >>>  			       IRQF_SHARED | IRQF_PROBE_SHARED,
> >>>  			       dev_name(dev), priv);
> >>> -	if (ret < 0) {
> >>> -		dev_err(dev, "Cannot get irq %d\n", irq);
> >>> -		return ret;
> >>> -	}
> >>> +	if (ret < 0)
> >>> +		return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Cannot get irq %d\n", irq);
> >>
> >> I don't think this is needed:
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230721094641.77189-1-frank.li@vivo.com/
> > 
> > Hmm, that's a bit borderline, I'd say. The change to
> 
> What's borderline exactly? devm_request_threaded_irq_probe() is coming,
> right? If it is accepted this hunk is useless and soon should be
> replaced with proper one.

Such change is out of the scope of this series, there are two
options that I'd prefer (in the listed order):

 1. accept the patch as it is, this patch is not sent today the
    first time and at the current state it's correct.
 2. not accept a change on this line

Replacing devm_request_irq belongs to another series and,
besides, I don't want to ask Liao to hold on this series for such
trivialities.

Thank you,
Andi

> Instead of making many trivial changes doing the same, all these series
> should be aligned.
> 
> > devm_request_irq/devm_request_threaded_irq_probe seems like
> > something for another series. But for now, I think I'll accept
> > this as it is since it fits within the scope of this current
> > series.
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>