On March 15, 2026 7:15:51 PM GMT, Erikas Bitovtas <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>On 3/15/26 8:31 PM, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Mar 2026 18:06:34 +0200
>> Erikas Bitovtas <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> The error code is available in the log after return. Remove duplicate
>>> error messages to reduce noise in dmesg.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Erikas Bitovtas <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/iio/light/vcnl4000.c | 9 ++-------
>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/light/vcnl4000.c b/drivers/iio/light/vcnl4000.c
>>> index e501db7249d7..c8bb1826b916 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/iio/light/vcnl4000.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/iio/light/vcnl4000.c
>>> @@ -2041,11 +2041,8 @@ static int vcnl4000_probe(struct i2c_client *client)
>>> NULL,
>>>
>>> data->chip_spec->trig_buffer_func,
>>>
>>> data->chip_spec->buffer_setup_ops);
>>> - if (ret < 0) {
>>> - dev_err(&client->dev,
>>> - "unable to setup iio triggered buffer\n");
>>
>> Is this one a duplicate? I don't recall us being particular verbose
>> in terms of error messages in iio_triggered_buffer_setup_ext() which is
>> where that ends up coming from. I think there is only one path
>> where it can return anything other than -ENOMEM and that one is a duplicate
>> registration check (so fair to not print). So perhaps all this patch
>> needs is a comment on what errors can surface from this call and why
>> it is therefore not worth printing anything.
>>
>
>I do not see anything being printed on iio_triggered_buffer_setup_ext(),
>so I guess this is not a duplicate. The function can return -EADDRINUSE
>if a buffer is already assigned, to prevent cleanup function being
>called on a buffer that wasn't allocated.
>I will add this print back if necessary in v4.
>
I think it is fine to drop the print but more detail on why is needed for the
commit message.
