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-König wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2020 at 04:23:37PM +0800, Rahul Tanwar wrote: > > ... > > > > + ret = lgm_clk_enable(dev, pc); > > > + if (ret) { > > > + dev_err(dev, "failed to enable clock\n"); > > > > You used dev_err_probe four times for six error paths. I wonder why you > > didn't use it here (and below for a failing pwmchip_add()). > > dev_err_probe() makes sense when we might experience deferred probe. In neither > of mentioned function this can be the case. > > > > + return ret; > > > + } > > ... > > > > + ret = lgm_reset_control_deassert(dev, pc); > > > + if (ret) > > > + return dev_err_probe(dev, ret, "cannot deassert reset control\n"); > > > > After lgm_reset_control_deassert is called pc->rst is unused. So there > > is no need to have this member in struct lgm_pwm_chip. The same applies > > to ->clk. (You have to pass rst (or clk) to devm_add_action_or_reset for > > that to work. Looks like a nice idea anyhow.) > > 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. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König | Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |