Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] iio: adc: qcom-spmi-adc5-gen3: Share SDAM0 IRQ with ADC_TM auxiliary driver

[Jishnu Prakash <jishnu.prakash@oss.qualcomm.com>]

Hi Andy,

On 6/12/2026 12:23 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 11, 2026 at 04:13:07PM +0530, Jishnu Prakash wrote:
>> On 6/4/2026 8:14 PM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 04, 2026 at 11:46:30AM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 3 Jun 2026 02:35:20 +0300
>>>> Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@intel.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, May 26, 2026 at 04:26:09PM +0530, Jishnu Prakash wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
>>>>>> +	ret = devm_request_threaded_irq(dev, adc->dev_data.base[ADC5_GEN3_VADC_SDAM].irq,
>>>>>> +					NULL, adc5_gen3_isr, IRQF_ONESHOT | IRQF_SHARED,
>>>>>> +					adc->dev_data.base[ADC5_GEN3_VADC_SDAM].irq_name,
>>>>>> +					adc);
>>>>>>  	if (ret)
>>>>>>  		return dev_err_probe(dev, ret,
>>>>>>  				     "Failed to request SDAM%d irq\n",  
>>>>>
>>>>> Also add a patch to drop this duplicate message.
>>>>
>>>> There is another thread going on this.  It might not be duplicate
>>>> if -EPROBE_DEFER is returned.  The message won't be printed but it
>>>> will be logged for helping debug deferred probe reasons.
>>>
>>> Yes, and I explained that it is duplicated as long as I understand current
>>> code base.
>>
>> After I checked for Andy's first comment, my understanding was that
>> devm_request_threaded_irq would internally call dev_err_probe in case
>> of an error, so this dev_err_probe print above would not be needed.
> 
> Correct.
> 
>> Please let me know if it's better to keep or remove this print.
> 
> You already know my position here :-)
> 
>> And if I make the change, shall I add it in a separate patch
>> before or after this patch in the next series?
> 
> The rule of thumb is to make sure your series won't do ping-pong type of
> changes: when one patch introduces (or moves) some code that is removed or
> modified in different way by another patch in the same series.

Thanks for confirming, I'll add it after this patch.

Thanks,
Jishnu


> 
>>>> So maybe we have been a little too energetic in removing these.
>>>
>>> Or maybe sashiko consumed a bit of LSD :-)
>