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>]

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.

Hi Jonathan, Andy,

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.

Please let me know if it's better to keep or remove this print.

And if I make the change, shall I add it in a separate patch
before or after this patch in the next series?

Thanks,
Jishnu

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