# Re: \[PATCH v2 net-next 04/15\] net: dsa: sja1105: prepare regmap for passing to child devices

- From: Andy Shevchenko \<andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com\>
- Date: 2026-01-22 14:54:18 
- List: netdev
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2026/01/3382423
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/netdev/2026/01/3381930/t.md

```text
On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 03:42:45PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 02:23:18PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 22, 2026 at 12:56:43PM +0200, Vladimir Oltean wrote:

...

> > > --- a/drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105.h
> > > +++ b/drivers/net/dsa/sja1105/sja1105.h
> > 
> > >  #include <linux/dsa/8021q.h>
> > >  #include <net/dsa.h>
> > >  #include <linux/mutex.h>
> > > +#include <linux/regmap.h>
> > > +
> > >  #include "sja1105_static_config.h"
> > 
> > It looks to me that somebody missed grouping above (not this change) and it's
> > better to have it done:
> > 
> > #include <linux/dsa/8021q.h>
> > #include <linux/mutex.h>
> > #include <linux/regmap.h>
> > 
> > #include <net/dsa.h>
> > 
> > #include "sja1105_static_config.h"
> 
> That somebody would be me, but I don't consider this a relevant change
> for this patch set.

While it's true, this patch already adds blank line which suggests that the
author (would be you :-) has something like grouping in mind. Otherwise just
place a new one before net/* which might be more logical in accordance with
your justification (of not doing grouping here).

But I'm not going to fight to death for this :-) Your choice!

...

> > > +	rc = devm_sja1105_create_regmap(priv);
> > > +	if (rc < 0) {
> > > +		dev_err(dev, "Failed to create regmap: %pe\n", ERR_PTR(rc));
> > > +		return rc;
> > > +	}
> > 
> > Hmm... Perhaps return dev_err_probe(...); ?
> 
> I never understood the point of dev_err_probe() when you know the return
> code can never be -EPROBE_DEFER.

i) Smaller code; ii) no need to care about: a) deferred probe cases;
b) -ENOMEM cases.  I see only benefits here by using it.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko


```