linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] thermal/drivers/hisi: Remove confusing error message

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 08 Aug 2017 20:48:51 +0800
From:   Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@...el.com>
To:     Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>, edubezval@...il.com
Cc:     "open list:THERMAL" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kong.kongxinwei@...ilicon.com, leo.yan@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] thermal/drivers/hisi: Remove confusing error message

On Tue, 2017-08-08 at 12:15 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> On 08/08/2017 09:55, Zhang Rui wrote:
> > 
> > On Fri, 2017-07-07 at 17:03 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
> > > 
> > > The sensor id is unknown at init time and we use all id in the
> > > authorized
> > > MAX_SENSORS interval to register the sensor. On this SoC there is
> > > one
> > > thermal-zone with one sensor on it. No need to spit on the
> > > console
> > > everytime we
> > > failed to register thermal sensors, information which is
> > > deliberaly
> > > known as it
> > > is part of the discovery process.
> > > 
> > >  hisi_thermal f7030700.tsensor: failed to register sensor id 0:
> > > -19
> > >  hisi_thermal f7030700.tsensor: failed to register thermal
> > > sensor:
> > > -19
> > >  hisi_thermal f7030700.tsensor: failed to register sensor id 1:
> > > -19
> > >  hisi_thermal f7030700.tsensor: failed to register thermal
> > > sensor:
> > > -19
> > >  hisi_thermal f7030700.tsensor: failed to register sensor id 3:
> > > -19
> > >  hisi_thermal f7030700.tsensor: failed to register thermal
> > > sensor:
> > > -19
> > > 
> > > Remove the error messages.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/thermal/hisi_thermal.c | 12 ++++++------
> > >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/thermal/hisi_thermal.c
> > > b/drivers/thermal/hisi_thermal.c
> > > index f642966..2cc98c6 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/thermal/hisi_thermal.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/thermal/hisi_thermal.c
> > > @@ -187,6 +187,9 @@ static int hisi_thermal_get_temp(void
> > > *_sensor,
> > > int *temp)
> > >  
> > >  	dev_dbg(&data->pdev->dev, "id=%d, irq=%d, temp=%d,
> > > thres=%d\n",
> > >  		sensor->id, data->irq_enabled, *temp, sensor-
> > > > 
> > > > thres_temp);
> > > +
> > > +	printk("id=%d, irq=%d, temp=%d, thres=%d\n",
> > > +		sensor->id, data->irq_enabled, *temp, sensor-
> > > > 
> > > > thres_temp);
> > what's this printk for?
> Argh. It shouldn't be there.
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > >  	/*
> > >  	 * Bind irq to sensor for two cases:
> > >  	 *   Reenable alarm IRQ if temperature below threshold;
> > > @@ -260,8 +263,6 @@ static int
> > > hisi_thermal_register_sensor(struct
> > > platform_device *pdev,
> > >  	if (IS_ERR(sensor->tzd)) {
> > >  		ret = PTR_ERR(sensor->tzd);
> > >  		sensor->tzd = NULL;
> > > -		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to register sensor
> > > id
> > > %d: %d\n",
> > > -			sensor->id, ret);
> > >  		return ret;
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > > @@ -352,10 +353,9 @@ static int hisi_thermal_probe(struct
> > > platform_device *pdev)
> > >  		ret = hisi_thermal_register_sensor(pdev, data,
> > >  						   &data-
> > > > 
> > > > sensors[i], i);
> > >  		if (ret)
> > > -			dev_err(&pdev->dev,
> > > -				"failed to register thermal
> > > sensor:
> > > %d\n", ret);
> > > -		else
> > > -			hisi_thermal_toggle_sensor(&data-
> > > > 
> > > > sensors[i], true);
> > > +			continue;
> > > +
> > > +		hisi_thermal_toggle_sensor(&data->sensors[i],
> > > true);
> > >  	}
> > >  
> > >  	return 0;
> > With these removed, is there any other information in dmesg that
> > suggests this failure?
> The problem is there are always failures showed in dmesg. The init
> function is based on the assumption there is HISI_MAX_SENSORS sensors
> which is not true for the hi6220 and that raises at boot time errors.
> 
> Why HISI_MAX_SENSORS(=4) while there is only one on hi6220 AFAIK? and
> this driver is only used for hi6220 (now).
> 
right, I think we should remove one error log, and then change the
HISI_MAX_SENSORS to reflect the reality instead.

XinWei and Leo,
can you please help check this?

thanks,
rui
> That ends up with 3 errors in dmesg for nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>