Re: [PATCH 11/16] iio: chemical: scd30: Simplify with dev_err_probe()

From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@kernel.org>
To: Tomasz Duszynski <tomasz.duszynski@octakon.com>
Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@kernel.org>,
	Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@gmx.de>,
	Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@metafoo.de>,
	Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@pmeerw.net>,
	Peter Rosin <peda@axentia.se>, Kukjin Kim <kgene@kernel.org>,
	Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@analog.com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@baylibre.com>,
	Neil Armstrong <narmstrong@baylibre.com>,
	Jerome Brunet <jbrunet@baylibre.com>,
	Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com>,
	Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@gmail.com>,
	Maxime Coquelin <mcoquelin.stm32@gmail.com>,
	Alexandre Torgue <alexandre.torgue@st.com>,
	Beniamin Bia <beniamin.bia@analog.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
	Jonathan Bakker <xc-racer2@live.ca>,
	Alexandru Ardelean <alexandru.ardelean@analog.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-stm32@st-md-mailman.stormreply.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/16] iio: chemical: scd30: Simplify with dev_err_probe()
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2020 17:57:23 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200826155723.GA31748@kozik-lap> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200826153434.GA7468@arch>

On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 05:34:34PM +0200, Tomasz Duszynski wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 04:51:48PM +0200, Krzysztof Kozlowski 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>
> > ---
> >  drivers/iio/chemical/scd30_core.c | 10 +++-------
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/iio/chemical/scd30_core.c b/drivers/iio/chemical/scd30_core.c
> > index eac76972f83e..92358797796d 100644
> > --- a/drivers/iio/chemical/scd30_core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/iio/chemical/scd30_core.c
> > @@ -705,13 +705,9 @@ int scd30_probe(struct device *dev, int irq, const char *name, void *priv,
> >  	indio_dev->available_scan_masks = scd30_scan_masks;
> >
> >  	state->vdd = devm_regulator_get(dev, "vdd");
> > -	if (IS_ERR(state->vdd)) {
> > -		if (PTR_ERR(state->vdd) == -EPROBE_DEFER)
> > -			return -EPROBE_DEFER;
> > -
> > -		dev_err(dev, "failed to get regulator\n");
> > -		return PTR_ERR(state->vdd);
> > -	}
> > +	if (IS_ERR(state->vdd))
> > +		return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(state->vdd),
> > +				     "failed to get regulator\n");
> 
> I'd say that removing like break would slightly improve readability.
> Besides, staying within 100 columns seems socially acceptable now.
> Otherwise,
> 
> Acked-by: Tomasz Duszynski <tomasz.duszynski@octakon.com>

Indeed. Although 80 is still mentioned as preferred (in commit bdc48fa11
and in coding style) but here having longer line would be better.

I guess this could be fixed up easily when applying but if resend is
wanted, let me know.

Best regards,
Krzysztof