[PATCH v2 09/18] iio: afe: iio-rescale: Simplify with dev_err_probe()

[Peter Rosin]

On 2020-08-28 08:24, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 11:46:40PM +0200, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> On 2020-08-27 21:26, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>>> Common pattern of handling deferred probe can be simplified with
>>> dev_err_probe().  Less code and also it prints the error value.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk at kernel.org>
>>>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> Changes since v1:
>>> 1. Wrap dev_err_probe() lines at 100 character
>>> ---
>>>  drivers/iio/afe/iio-rescale.c | 7 ++-----
>>>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/afe/iio-rescale.c b/drivers/iio/afe/iio-rescale.c
>>> index 69c0f277ada0..8cd9645c50e8 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/iio/afe/iio-rescale.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/iio/afe/iio-rescale.c
>>> @@ -276,11 +276,8 @@ static int rescale_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>>  	int ret;
>>>  
>>>  	source = devm_iio_channel_get(dev, NULL);
>>> -	if (IS_ERR(source)) {
>>> -		if (PTR_ERR(source) != -EPROBE_DEFER)
>>> -			dev_err(dev, "failed to get source channel\n");
>>> -		return PTR_ERR(source);
>>> -	}
>>> +	if (IS_ERR(source))
>>> +		return dev_err_probe(dev, PTR_ERR(source), "failed to get source channel\n");
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> Sorry to be a pain...but...
>>
>> I'm not a huge fan of adding *one* odd line breaking the 80 column
>> recommendation to any file. I like to be able to fit multiple
>> windows side by side in a meaningful way. Also, I don't like having
>> a shitload of emptiness on my screen, which is what happens when some
>> lines are longer and you want to see it all. I strongly believe that
>> the 80 column rule/recommendation is still as valid as it ever was.
>> It's just hard to read longish lines; there's a reason newspapers
>> columns are quite narrow...
>>
>> Same comment for the envelope-detector (3/18).
>>
>> You will probably never look at these files again, but *I* might have
>> to revisit them for one reason or another, and these long lines will
>> annoy me when that happens.
> 
> Initially I posted it with 80-characters wrap. Then I received a comment
> - better to stick to the new 100, as checkpatch accepts it.
> 
> Now you write, better to go back to 80.
> 
> Maybe then someone else will write to me, better to go to 100.
> 
> And another person will reply, no, coding style still mentions 80, so
> keep it at 80.
> 
> Sure guys, please first decide which one you prefer, then I will wrap it
> accordingly. :)
> 
> Otherwise I will just jump from one to another depending on one person's
> personal preference.
> 
> If there is no consensus among discussing people, I find this 100 line
> more readable, already got review, checkpatch accepts it so if subsystem
> maintainer likes it, I prefer to leave it like this.

I'm not impressed by that argument. For the files I have mentioned, it
does not matter very much to me if you and some random person think that
100 columns might *slightly* improve readability.

Quoting coding-style

  Statements longer than 80 columns should be broken into sensible chunks,
  unless exceeding 80 columns significantly increases readability and does
  not hide information.

Notice that word? *significantly*

Why do I even have to speak up about this? WTF?

For the patches that touch files that I originally wrote [1], my
preference should be clear by now.

Cheers,
Peter

[1]

drivers/iio/adc/envelope-detector.c
drivers/iio/afe/iio-rescale.c
drivers/iio/dac/dpot-dac.c
drivers/iio/multiplexer/iio-mux.c

>> You did wrap the lines for dpot-dac (12/18) - which is excellent - but
>> that makes me curious as to what the difference is?
> 
> Didn't fit into limit of 100.