From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com (szxga02-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.188]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 166B379DC; Sat, 14 Sep 2024 01:18:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.188 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1726276687; cv=none; b=sPh42txzGWu5HvnwFenOADZD2iFpcefRmcyOb5wlR5T/kHEp8UkQpyTH5kk1uoIaq5q1pKDyjys9Uo3wBANheynN0yX5CR3MzIQFYbv6oBlMc0xqw3/XgMETllA02fMoLiy+Q9nSsbsewCZne/WWcr0sHD/G1/yrvple3rlkwZk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1726276687; c=relaxed/simple; bh=O2zZ+g2CNfoY91bgctyAl7vsHDJ5D1WTHE5tOdRaOOU=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=QhUzk8A4RDLCBxLUWjE2JF3NceH3mC3cEyaDaY7sqrKgqgD4sW41A3rdSBdf8haXNDN+E4zNf3vhYKAb0sCjEAMMLMkUePnvRlzK8OdS5eWItMdU0oucU/NSomHYLNbAFUeLbwhN6c8tG47QKMSbw7JmECKyPrZas04GFX02Z3g= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.188 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.163.252]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4X5Csx1Rpkzfbs2; Sat, 14 Sep 2024 09:15:49 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemh500013.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.202.181.146]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EBCD818010B; Sat, 14 Sep 2024 09:18:00 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.67.109.254] (10.67.109.254) by kwepemh500013.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.146) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Sat, 14 Sep 2024 09:18:00 +0800 Message-ID: <37f07293-bbfa-7194-b5f7-fa2aec982a67@huawei.com> Date: Sat, 14 Sep 2024 09:17:59 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-spi@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.2.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] spi: geni-qcom: Use devm functions to simplify code Content-Language: en-US To: Doug Anderson CC: , , , , , References: <20240909132810.1296786-1-ruanjinjie@huawei.com> <20240909132810.1296786-4-ruanjinjie@huawei.com> <10e77c5a-a188-698b-0c82-86c4bcdf114d@huawei.com> From: Jinjie Ruan In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.181) To kwepemh500013.china.huawei.com (7.202.181.146) On 2024/9/14 0:27, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2024 at 11:44 PM Jinjie Ruan wrote: >> >> On 2024/9/12 21:38, Doug Anderson wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 8:53 PM Jinjie Ruan wrote: >>>> >>>>>> @@ -1132,6 +1134,12 @@ static int spi_geni_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>>>>> if (ret) >>>>>> return ret; >>>>>> >>>>>> + ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, spi_geni_release_dma_chan, mas); >>>>>> + if (ret) { >>>>>> + dev_err(dev, "Unable to add action.\n"); >>>>>> + return ret; >>>>>> + } >>>>> >>>>> Use dev_err_probe() to simplify. >>>>> >>>>> ret = devm_add_action_or_reset(dev, spi_geni_release_dma_chan, mas); >>>>> if (ret) >>>>> return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "Unable to add action.\n"); >>>> >>>> It seems that if it only return -ENOMEM or 0, using dev_err_probe() has >>>> not not much value for many community maintainers. >>> >>> While I won't insist, it still has some value to use dev_err_probe() >>> as I talked about in commit 7065f92255bb ("driver core: Clarify that >>> dev_err_probe() is OK even w/out -EPROBE_DEFER") >> The main difference is that when use dev_err_probe()，there will print >> anything on -ENOMEM now. > > Oh, I see. You're saying that we should just get rid of the print > altogether because the only error case is -ENOMEM and the kernel > already splats there? Yeah, that sounds right to me. That doesn't > match what you did in v5, though... I think the following 2 soultion is both fine: 1、return ret directly. 2、dev_err() and return. > > -Doug