Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] treewide: Remove dev_err() usage after platform_get_irq()

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Tue, Jul 30, 2019 at 08:35:59AM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Quoting Greg Kroah-Hartman (2019-07-29 23:49:17)
> > On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 10:38:44PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > We don't need dev_err() messages when platform_get_irq() fails now that
> > > platform_get_irq() prints an error message itself when something goes
> > > wrong. Let's remove these prints with a simple semantic patch.
> > > 
> > > // <smpl>
> > > @@
> > > expression ret;
> > > struct platform_device *E;
> > > @@
> > > 
> > > ret =
> > > (
> > > platform_get_irq(E, ...)
> > > |
> > > platform_get_irq_byname(E, ...)
> > > );
> > > 
> > > if ( \( ret < 0 \| ret <= 0 \) )
> > > {
> > > (
> > > -if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER)
> > > -{ ...
> > > -dev_err(...);
> > > -... }
> > > |
> > > ...
> > > -dev_err(...);
> > > )
> > > ...
> > > }
> > > // </smpl>
> > > 
> > > While we're here, remove braces on if statements that only have one
> > > statement (manually).
> > 
> > I like this, and I like patch 1/3, but this is going to conflict like
> > crazy all over the tree with who ever ends up taking it in their tree.
> > 
> > Can you just break this up into per-subsystem pieces and send it through
> > those trees, and any remaining ones I can take, but at least give
> > maintainers a chance to take it.
> 
> Ok. Let me resend just this patch broken up into many pieces.

Thanks.

> > You are also going to have to do a sweep every other release or so to
> > catch the stragglers.
> 
> I was going to let the janitors do that.

We are all janitors :)