linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] regulator: pwm: Don't warn on probe deferral

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Fri, 6 Mar 2020 12:35:30 +0000
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
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 Fri, Mar 06, 2020 at 08:51:29AM +0100, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:

> I wonder if we should do something like:

> 	ret = some_call(some, args);
> 	if (ret) {
> 		if (emit_errmsg_for_err(ret))
> 			dev_err(dev, "some_call failed: %pE\n", ERR_PTR(ret));
> 		return ret;
> 	}

> and have emit_errmsg_for_err return true if ret != -EPROBE_DEFER or some
> kernel parameter is given.

There was some effort in the past to have a dev_probe_err() or something
which could have a similar implementation but that didn't end up going
anywhere I think.  I do prefer the debug level log since it's much
easier to have the information there without having to ask for it, that
design would've supported that.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)