[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <0dc45659-33cd-0dfb-946b-9303fe54ec1c@linux.intel.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 10:34:38 -0500
From: Pierre-Louis Bossart <pierre-louis.bossart@...ux.intel.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: alsa-devel@...a-project.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tiwai@...e.de, broonie@...nel.org, vkoul@...nel.org,
jank@...ence.com, srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org,
slawomir.blauciak@...el.com, Sanyog Kale <sanyog.r.kale@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 04/40] soundwire: intel: add debugfs register dump
>> +static const struct file_operations intel_reg_fops = {
>> + .open = simple_open,
>> + .read = intel_reg_read,
>> + .llseek = default_llseek,
>> +};
>
> DEFINE_SIMPLE_ATTRIBUTE()?
yes
>
>> +
>> +static void intel_debugfs_init(struct sdw_intel *sdw)
>> +{
>> + struct dentry *root = sdw->cdns.bus.debugfs;
>> +
>> + if (!root)
>> + return;
>> +
>> + sdw->fs = debugfs_create_dir("intel-sdw", root);
>> + if (IS_ERR_OR_NULL(sdw->fs)) {
>> + dev_err(sdw->cdns.dev, "debugfs root creation failed\n");
>
> No, come on, don't do that. I've been sweeping the kernel tree to
> remove this anti-pattern.
>
> The debugfs core will print an error if you got something wrong, just
> call the function and move on, you NEVER need to check the return value
> of a debugfs call.
Yes, sorry to make your blood pressure go up... I missed this one in the
cleanups yesterday. will fix.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists