[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200226161757.idpzbs3jmayt7ya6@pengutronix.de>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 17:17:57 +0100
From: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc: Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>,
Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] regulator: pwm: Don't warn on probe deferral
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 04:58:59PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 02:40:48PM +0000, Jon Hunter wrote:
> > Deferred probe is an expected return value for devm_pwm_get(). Given
> > that the driver deals with it properly, there's no need to output a
> > warning that may potentially confuse users.
>
> > ret = PTR_ERR(drvdata->pwm);
> > - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to get PWM: %d\n", ret);
> > + if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER)
> > + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to get PWM: %d\n", ret);
>
> This then means that there's no way for users to determine why the
> driver has failed to instantiate which can be frustrating. It'd be
> better to at least have some dev_dbg() output when deferring so that
> there's something for people to go on without having to instrument the
> code.
Not printing an error message is quite usual however. I think a generic
approach that for example makes the list of devices that should be
retried to probe on the next opportunity inspectable would be nice.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Powered by blists - more mailing lists