Switch to use dev_err_probe() to simplify the error path and
unify a message template.

Using this helper is totally fine even if err is known to never 
be -EPROBE_DEFER.

The benefit compared to a normal dev_err() is the standardized format
of the error code, it being emitted symbolically and the fact that
the error code is returned which allows more compact error paths.

Signed-off-by: Yan Zhen <yanzhen@vivo.com>
---
 drivers/media/i2c/max2175.c | 5 ++---
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/max2175.c b/drivers/media/i2c/max2175.c
index bf02ca23a284..700a70a6cee3 100644
--- a/drivers/media/i2c/max2175.c
+++ b/drivers/media/i2c/max2175.c
@@ -1299,9 +1299,8 @@ static int max2175_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
 		ret = max2175_refout_load_to_bits(client, refout_load,
 						  &refout_bits);
 		if (ret) {
-			dev_err(&client->dev, "invalid refout_load %u\n",
-				refout_load);
-			return -EINVAL;
+			return dev_err_probe(&client->dev, -EINVAL,
+					"invalid refout_load %u\n", refout_load);
 		}
 	}
 
-- 
2.34.1

On 28/08/2024 11:45, Yan Zhen wrote:
> Switch to use dev_err_probe() to simplify the error path and
> unify a message template.
> 
> Using this helper is totally fine even if err is known to never 
> be -EPROBE_DEFER.
> 
> The benefit compared to a normal dev_err() is the standardized format
> of the error code, it being emitted symbolically and the fact that
> the error code is returned which allows more compact error paths.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yan Zhen <yanzhen@vivo.com>
> ---
>  drivers/media/i2c/max2175.c | 5 ++---
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/media/i2c/max2175.c b/drivers/media/i2c/max2175.c
> index bf02ca23a284..700a70a6cee3 100644
> --- a/drivers/media/i2c/max2175.c
> +++ b/drivers/media/i2c/max2175.c
> @@ -1299,9 +1299,8 @@ static int max2175_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
>  		ret = max2175_refout_load_to_bits(client, refout_load,
>  						  &refout_bits);
>  		if (ret) {
> -			dev_err(&client->dev, "invalid refout_load %u\n",
> -				refout_load);

Another example, one of many from @vivo.com, where you touch one line
and leave everything else not modified.

Are you going to send 5 different patches - one per each line? You
generate tremendous amount of work for reviewers to handle this.

Since ~2 weeks there is tremendous amount of trivial patches coming from
vivo.com. I identified at least 6 buggy, where the contributor did not
understand the code. Not sure about intention, but I advise extra
carefulness when dealing with these "trivial" improvements (because we
tend to apply things which look trivial).


Best regards,
Krzysztof