Re: [PATCH v3 2/4] iio: temperature: ltc2983: convert to dev_err_probe()

["Nuno Sá" <noname.nuno@gmail.com>]

On Thu, 2024-06-06 at 13:17 +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 06, 2024 at 09:22:38AM +0200, Nuno Sa wrote:
> > Use dev_err_probe() (and variants) in the probe() path. While at it, made
> > some simple improvements:
> >  * Explicitly included the err.h and errno.h headers;
> >  * Removed some unnecessary line breaks;
> >  * Removed a redundant 'else';
> >  * Added some missing \n to prink.
> 
> ...
> 
> > -		if (ret) {
> > +		if (ret)
> >  			/*
> >  			 * This would be catched later but we can just
> > return
> >  			 * the error right away.
> >  			 */
> > -			dev_err(&st->spi->dev, "Property reg must be
> > given\n");
> > -			return ERR_PTR(ret);
> > -		}
> > +			return dev_err_ptr_probe(&st->spi->dev, ret,
> > +						 "Property reg must be
> > given\n");
> 
> Even if it becomes a one line of code, it's still a multiline branch, due to
> comment. I think {} is better to be there. What does checkpatch say about
> this?

Checkpatch is fine about it...

> 
> 
> ...
> 
> > +			return dev_err_ptr_probe(&st->spi->dev, -EINVAL,
> 
> You can make all these lines shorter by using
> 
> 	struct device *dev = &st->spi->dev; // or analogue
> 
> at the top of the function.
> 

Well, I had that in v2 (making the whole driver coherent with the local struct
device helper but you kind of "complained" for a precursor patch (on a
devm_kzalloc() call). So basically I deferred that change for a follow up patch.

- Nuno Sá

>