[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2015 21:34:31 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
Cc: Christian Ruppert <christian.ruppert@...tech.com>,
Alexey Brodkin <Alexey.Brodkin@...opsys.com>,
"christian.ruppert@...lis.com" <christian.ruppert@...lis.com>,
"linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org" <linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com" <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>,
"Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com" <Vineet.Gupta1@...opsys.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2c: designware: Suppress error message if
platform_get_irq() returns -EPROBE_DEFER
On Tue, 2015-03-03 at 20:11 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > Yes, I was thinking even about some wrapper on top of platform_get_irq()
> > since it seems there are no messaging done inside platform.c, though
> > devm_* functions usually have it.
>
> When I had a look a few months ago, the situation with devm_* was messy.
> Some rightfully printed errors, some rightfully didn't, some vice versa,
> some the other way around, and some did something else...
>
> For driver authors, it is hard to see/remember which devm function does
> it and which doesn't. IMO a good cleanup will get rid of this mess. I
> started sketching something but especially clks and irqs are basically
> everywhere and so it easily grew out of the fun-time project scale,
> sadly.
Yeah, same for me. I've checked the situation with platform_get_irq()
and estimate the amount of drivers about 300.
That's why I discourage to create another one that needs to be fixed in
the future.
--
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...el.com>
Intel Finland Oy
--
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