[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <616a9d4e-7050-a6c2-727d-f62e08d3d98c@roeck-us.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 05:37:12 -0700
From: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>
Cc: linux-watchdog@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
Fabio Estevam <festevam@...il.com>,
Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@...r.kernel.org,
NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@....com>,
Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@...gutronix.de>,
Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@...ux-watchdog.org>,
Shawn Guo <shawnguo@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/16] watchdog: imx_sc_wdt: drop warning after calling
watchdog_init_timeout
On 4/29/19 3:15 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 08:15:53PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>> The core will print out details now.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
>> Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@...g-engineering.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/watchdog/imx_sc_wdt.c | 5 +----
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/imx_sc_wdt.c b/drivers/watchdog/imx_sc_wdt.c
>> index 86c2722f2a09..6dc24ceb1b2c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/watchdog/imx_sc_wdt.c
>> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/imx_sc_wdt.c
>
> This driver isn't in next, and I don't know where to look for it.
>
Branch watchdog-next of
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/groeck/linux-staging.git
>> @@ -117,10 +117,7 @@ static int imx_sc_wdt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>> imx_sc_wdd->parent = &pdev->dev;
>> imx_sc_wdd->timeout = DEFAULT_TIMEOUT;
>>
>> - ret = watchdog_init_timeout(imx_sc_wdd, 0, &pdev->dev);
>> - if (ret)
>> - dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "Failed to set timeout value, using default\n");
>> -
>> + watchdog_init_timeout(imx_sc_wdd, 0, &pdev->dev);
>
> One side effect is however that ret isn't set any more. So I wonder if a
> failure in watchdog_init_timeout() really makes the core print the
> details as expected.
>
Sorry, I don't understand. The warning is printed in watchdog_init_timeout().
What does that have to do with setting ret here or not ?
Thanks,
Guenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists