Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200829064726.26268-1-krzk@kernel.org> <20200829064726.26268-8-krzk@kernel.org>
 <20200909193600.41970d8c@archlinux> <CAJKOXPeo8SXWaRmiFG6z+t9jcnaSMRpvRPm2X22Rf6rtEeKVew@mail.gmail.com>
 <a37c69f2-1f16-2680-2716-0c1b77748d55@axentia.se> <CAHp75Vc4-zkkWtOz8w7pA0Vu1yMAVodhPSLQ1NJH4K+j9XD52g@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75Vc4-zkkWtOz8w7pA0Vu1yMAVodhPSLQ1NJH4K+j9XD52g@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
Date:   Thu, 10 Sep 2020 08:58:57 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJKOXPdNAw8scFKCGaC_hp4jMyLD_mFLKr=+fGKSm6nCkcRF9g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/18] iio: adc: stm32: Simplify with dev_err_probe()
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc:     Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>,
        Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
        Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@pmeerw.net>,
        Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@analog.com>,
        Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>,
        Tomasz Duszynski <tomasz.duszynski@octakon.com>,
        "linux-iio@vger.kernel.org" <linux-iio@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org" 
        <linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org" 
        <linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com" 
        <linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 08:52, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, September 10, 2020, Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se> wrote:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> On 2020-09-09 21:57, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> > On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 20:36, Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, 29 Aug 2020 08:47:16 +0200
>> >> Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Common pattern of handling deferred probe can be simplified with
>> >>> dev_err_probe().  Less code and also it prints the error value.
>> >>>
>> >>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
>> >>> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
>> >>>
>> >> I don't have the thread to hand, but this tripped a warning next
>> >> and the patch was dropped as a result. See below.
>> >
>> > Thanks for letting me know. If you mean the warning caused by:
>> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200909073716.GA560912@kroah.com/
>> > then the driver-core patch was dropped, not the iio one:
>> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-next/20200909074130.GB561485@kroah.com/T/#t
>> >
>> > So we are good here :)
>>
>> No, we are definitely not good. See below. That means "See below", and
>> not "Please take a guess at what is being talking about".
>
>
>
>>
>> >>> @@ -596,12 +594,9 @@ static int stm32_adc_core_switches_probe(struct device *dev,
>> >>>               priv->booster = devm_regulator_get_optional(dev, "booster");
>> >>>               if (IS_ERR(priv->booster)) {
>> >>>                       ret = PTR_ERR(priv->booster);
>> >>> -                     if (ret != -ENODEV) {
>> >>> -                             if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER)
>> >>> -                                     dev_err(dev, "can't get booster %d\n",
>> >>> -                                             ret);
>> >>> -                             return ret;
>> >>> -                     }
>> >>> +                     if (ret != -ENODEV)
>> >>> +                             dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "can't get booster\n");
>> >>
>> >> This tripped a warning and got the patch dropped because we no longer
>> >> return on error.
>>
>> As Jonathan already said, we no longer return in this hunk. I.e., you have
>> clobbered the error path.
>
>
> Exactly my point why I proposed _must_check in the first place.

That was not exactly that point as you did not mention possible errors
but only "miss the opportunity to optimize". Optimization is different
things than a mistake.

Best regards,
Krzysztof