On Sun, Feb 09, 2025 at 04:47:44PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 08, 2025 at 04:13:24PM -0500, Aren Moynihan wrote:
> > Using dev_err_probe instead of dev_err and return makes the errors
>
> Use dev_err_probe()
> dev_err()
>
> > easier to understand by including the error name, and saves a little
> > code.
>
> I believe this patch will make more sense before switching to local 'dev'
> variable. Then the previous one will have an additional justification as
> the "struct device *dev = ...;" lines in some cases will be added already
> by this patch.
That will only be added in one spot, and I skipped updating the dev_err
calls in the previous patch that this patch rewrites, so churn shouldn't
be an issue. That also makes it trivial to reorder them, so I guess it
can't hurt.
> > indio_dev = devm_iio_device_alloc(dev, sizeof(*data));
> > - if (!indio_dev) {
> > - dev_err(&client->dev, "iio allocation failed!\n");
> > - return -ENOMEM;
> > - }
> > + if (!indio_dev)
> > + return dev_err_probe(dev, -ENOMEM, "iio allocation failed!\n");
>
> We don't issue the messages for -ENOMEM.
>
> If it's in the current code, add a new patch to drop this message and return
> an
> error code directly.
>
> ...
>
> > + if (ret < 0)
>
> Perhaps, while at it, drop these ' < 0' parts where they are not hinting about
> anything.
Sure, I can add patches for these, although continuing to rebase this
series is getting a bit cumbersome (perhaps just because I haven't found
a good workflow for it). Would I be better off reordering this so the
refactoring patches come first and can be partially merged?
Regards
- Aren
