On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 08:58:57 +0200 Krzysztof Kozlowski <k...@kernel.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 at 08:52, Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevche...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thursday, September 10, 2020, Peter Rosin <p...@axentia.se> wrote: > >> > >> Hi! > >> > >> On 2020-09-09 21:57, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > >> > On Wed, 9 Sep 2020 at 20:36, Jonathan Cameron <ji...@kernel.org> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> On Sat, 29 Aug 2020 08:47:16 +0200 > >> >> Krzysztof Kozlowski <k...@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 <k...@kernel.org> > >> >>> Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevche...@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. oops. That is what I get for reading an email very quickly then looking at the code a few hours later. Still a problem here we need to fix unless I'm missing something. > >> > > >> > Thanks for letting me know. If you mean the warning caused by: > >> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200909073716.ga560...@kroah.com/ > >> > then the driver-core patch was dropped, not the iio one: > >> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-next/20200909074130.gb561...@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. In this particular case we have introduced a bug. If the regulator returns an error other than -ENODEV we will carry on when really should error out. This includes deferred probe route in which it won't print a message but also won't actually defer. Jonathan > > Best regards, > Krzysztof > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-ker...@lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
