Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Fri, 10 Jun 2022 14:09:24 +0300
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To:     Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Cc:     Jonathan Lemon <jonathan.lemon@gmail.com>, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v1 1/5] ptp_ocp: use dev_err_probe()
Message-ID: <YqMmZBEsCv+f19se@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20220608120358.81147-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <20220608120358.81147-2-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <20220609224523.78b6a6e6@kernel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220609224523.78b6a6e6@kernel.org>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 10:45:23PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed,  8 Jun 2022 15:03:54 +0300 Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > Simplify the error path in ->probe() and unify message format a bit
> > by using dev_err_probe().
> 
> Let's not do this. I get that using dev_err_probe() even without
> possibility of -EPROBE_DEFER is acceptable, but converting
> existing drivers is too much IMO. Acceptable < best practice.

Noted.

I have just checked that if you drop this patch the rest will be still
applicable. If you have no objections, can you apply patches 2-5 then?

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko