Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-160382-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2024 19:33:03 +0300
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
To: Jernej =?utf-8?Q?=C5=A0krabec?= <jernej.skrabec@gmail.com>
Cc: Samuel Holland <samuel@sholland.org>, linux-leds@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-sunxi@lists.linux.dev,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
	Lee Jones <lee@kernel.org>, Chen-Yu Tsai <wens@csie.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/1] leds: sun50i-a100: Use match_string() helper to
 simplify the code
Message-ID: <ZivXP-tdrLXriHOE@smile.fi.intel.com>
References: <20240426152515.872917-1-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
 <3557566.iIbC2pHGDl@jernej-laptop>
 <ZivMCljzog7z_SgZ@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <8403927.NyiUUSuA9g@jernej-laptop>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <8403927.NyiUUSuA9g@jernej-laptop>
Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo

On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 05:55:22PM +0200, Jernej Škrabec wrote:
> Dne petek, 26. april 2024 ob 17:45:14 GMT +2 je Andy Shevchenko napisal(a):
> > On Fri, Apr 26, 2024 at 05:37:42PM +0200, Jernej Škrabec wrote:
> > > Dne petek, 26. april 2024 ob 17:25:15 GMT +2 je Andy Shevchenko napisal(a):

..

> > > > +		return dev_err_probe(dev, i, "Bad pixel format '%s'\n", format);
> > > 
> > > I know that old code used dev_err_probe() without reason, but could you change
> > > it to ordinary dev_err()?
> > 
> > First of all, it's out of scope of _this_ patch.
> > 
> > > dev_err_probe() is useful only when return code could be -EPROBE_DEFER.
> > 
> > This is simply not true. We are trying to have a uniform output in ->probe()
> > and even documentation for dev_err_probe() was changed long time ago to
> > encourage using it for non deferred probe cases.
> > 
> > > This is clearly not the case here.
> > 
> > Is it a problem?
> 
> Sorry, I missed added note for non -EPROBE_DEFER cases.

No problem.

> Reviewed-by: Jernej Skrabec <jernej.skrabec@gmail.com>

Thank you for the review!

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko