Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 23 Apr 2024 18:42:53 +0300 | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] iio: temperature: ltc2983: convert to dev_err_probe() |
| |
On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 05:20:31PM +0200, Nuno Sa via B4 Relay wrote: > From: Nuno Sa <nuno.sa@analog.com> > > Use dev_err_probe() in the probe() path. While at it, made some simple > improvements: > * Declare a struct device *dev helper. This also makes the style more > consistent (some places the helper was used and not in other places); > * Explicitly included the err.h and errno.h headers; > * Removed an useless else if(); > * Removed some unnecessary line breaks.
..
> /* Check space on the table. */ > if (st->custom_table_size + new_custom->size > > - (LTC2983_CUST_SENS_TBL_END_REG - > - LTC2983_CUST_SENS_TBL_START_REG) + 1) {
> + (LTC2983_CUST_SENS_TBL_END_REG - LTC2983_CUST_SENS_TBL_START_REG) + 1)
Semi-unrelated change?
..
> + return dev_err_ptr_probe(dev, -EINVAL, > + "Invalid chann:%d for differential thermocouple",
While at it, add missing \n.
> + sensor->chan);
..
> + return dev_err_cast_probe(dev, ref, > + "Property adi,rsense-handle missing or invalid");
Ditto.
..
> + return dev_err_ptr_probe(dev, -EINVAL, > + "Invalid number of wires:%u\n", > + n_wires);
Can be compressed in terms of LoCs?
..
> + return dev_err_ptr_probe(dev, -EINVAL, > + "Rotation not allowed for 2/3 Wire RTDs");
\n
..
> + return dev_err_ptr_probe(dev, -EINVAL, > + "Invalid rsense chann:%d to use in kelvin rsense", > + rtd->r_sense_chan);
Ditto.
..
> + return dev_err_ptr_probe(dev, -EINVAL, > + "Invalid chann:%d for the rtd config",
Ditto.
> + sensor->chan);
..
> + return dev_err_ptr_probe(dev, -EINVAL, > + "Invalid chann:%d for RTD",
Ditto.
> + sensor->chan);
..
> + return dev_err_ptr_probe(dev, -EINVAL, > + "Invalid value for excitation current(%u)",
Ditto.
> + excitation_current);
..
> + if (IS_ERR(ref)) > + return dev_err_cast_probe(dev, ref, > + "Property adi,rsense-handle missing or invalid");
Ditto.
..
> + return dev_err_ptr_probe(dev, -EINVAL, > + "Invalid chann:%d for differential thermistor", > + sensor->chan);
Ditto.
..
> + return dev_err_ptr_probe(dev, -EINVAL, > + "Invalid value for excitation current(%u)", > + excitation_current);
Ditto.
..
> + return dev_err_ptr_probe(dev, -EINVAL, > + "Invalid chann:%d for differential thermistor", > + sensor->chan);
Ditto.
..
> + return dev_err_ptr_probe(dev, -EINVAL, > + "Invalid value for excitation current(%u)", > + excitation_current);
Ditto.
..
> + return dev_err_ptr_probe(dev, -EINVAL, > + "Invalid chann:%d for r_sense", > + sensor->chan);
Ditto.
..
> + if (!st->num_channels) > + return dev_err_probe(dev, -EINVAL, > + "At least one channel must be given!");
Ditto.
..
> + return dev_err_probe(dev, -EINVAL, > + "EEPROM command failed: 0x%02X\n", val);
One line?
..
> + if (IS_ERR(st->regmap)) > + return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(st->regmap), > + "Failed to initialize regmap\n");
Wondering about Andi's proposal in conjunction with %pe to be in use
return dev_???(dev, st->regmap, "Failed to initialize regmap\n");
where it returns an int and uses const void * as an error pointer for %pe.
> - st->iio_chan = devm_kzalloc(&spi->dev, > + st->iio_chan = devm_kzalloc(dev, > st->iio_channels * sizeof(*st->iio_chan), > GFP_KERNEL);
Separate change to devm_kzalloc() before this patch? In that patch you may also introduce a temporary struct device *dev.
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
| |