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;
IronPort-SDR: T+NPBjClqOVJKeJI8IfG3rf38lPNB8rUzg2/j12wvVcgZtuFGvU/+81s5/jlYMgBs6QfX1Rugk
 RHnYXDi4B21A==
IronPort-SDR: eJGqry7RCkHfSNAQd5teD3D9rGoqQNy00gZxxnehLb1Fmq5cnE1dUIoJVd5FKYFeuF2/D9aBo8
 qiqPRtfGG8aw==
Date:   Fri, 25 Sep 2020 11:39:42 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com>
To:     Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= 
        <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
Cc:     Rahul Tanwar <rahul.tanwar@linux.intel.com>,
        linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, lee.jones@linaro.org,
        thierry.reding@gmail.com, p.zabel@pengutronix.de,
        robh+dt@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org, songjun.Wu@intel.com,
        cheol.yong.kim@intel.com, qi-ming.wu@intel.com,
        rahul.tanwar.linux@gmail.com, rtanwar@maxlinear.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v13 2/2] Add PWM fan controller driver for LGM SoC
Message-ID: <20200925083942.GW3956970@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <cover.1600158087.git.rahul.tanwar@linux.intel.com>
 <befa655d8beb326fc8aa405a25a8b3e62b7e6a4a.1600158087.git.rahul.tanwar@linux.intel.com>
 <20200924065534.e2anwghhtysv63e7@pengutronix.de>
 <20200924132334.GT3956970@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <20200924141659.4wov7w2l2bllpre4@pengutronix.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20200924141659.4wov7w2l2bllpre4@pengutronix.de>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 04:16:59PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 04:23:34PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 08:55:34AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-K?nig wrote:

...

> > True. And above dev_err_probe() is not needed.
> 
> You argue that dev_err_probe() gives no benefit as
> lgm_reset_control_deassert won't return -EPROBE_DEFER, right?
> 
> Still I consider it a useful function because
> 
>  a) I (as an author or as a reviewer) don't need to think if the
>     failing function might return -EPROBE_DEFER now or in the future.
>     dev_err_probe does the right thing even for functions that don't
>     return -EPROBE_DEFER.
> 
>  b) With dev_err_probe() I can accomplish things in a single line that
>     need two lines when open coding it.
> 
>  c) dev_err_probe() emits the symbolic error name without having to
>     resort to %pe + ERR_PTR.
> 
>  d) Using dev_err_probe() for all error paths gives a consistency that I
>     like with a maintainer's hat on.
> 
> So I still want to request using dev_err_probe() in all error paths.

As a maintainer it is your choice. I really would like to see more consensus
among maintainers, some are insisting of what I said, some, like you, on the
opposite, some hate that API and some simply don't care.

And on top of that I saw already use of API without taking returned value into
account.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko