[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081215112226.18f7fb29@hyperion.delvare>
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 11:22:26 +0100
From: Jean Delvare <khali@...ux-fr.org>
To: Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>
Cc: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>,
Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: GPIO: Fix probe() error return in gpio driver probes
On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:16:16 +0000, Ben Dooks wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 08:46:00AM +0100, Jean Delvare wrote:
> > On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 16:11:17 -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> > > On Sunday 14 December 2008, Ben Dooks wrote:
> > > > Has anyone reveiwed this patch? Are there any comments, or can this
> > > > be commited at somepoint (even if it is during the next merge window)?
> > >
> > > I was thinking that -EINVAL is almost the least informative
> > > diagnostic code possible, since so many places return it
> > > that it's usually hard to find out *which* invalid parameter
> > > triggered ...
> > >
> > > Is there a less-overloaded code you could return?
> >
> > -EINVAL sounds right to me, all that's really missing is dev_dbg()
> > messages in the drivers to log what the exact problem was.
>
> It might be more acceptable to be dev_err(), that way it will get
> printed no matter what debug options have been selected. If so, a
> seperate patch is probably in order to make the change.
As far as I can see, such errors would be caused by development-time
mistakes, so dev_dbg() seems appropriate. dev_err() would make the
binaries larger for all end-users.
--
Jean Delvare
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists