[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200730070021.l2yuomsc3uwua5bx@pengutronix.de>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 09:00:21 +0200
From: Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>
Cc: Roy Im <roy.im.opensource@...semi.com>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>,
Brian Masney <masneyb@...tation.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>, Luca Weiss <luca@...tu.xyz>,
Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@...il.com>,
Pascal PAILLET-LME <p.paillet@...com>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Support Opensource <support.opensource@...semi.com>,
linux-input@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v18 3/3] Input: new da7280 haptic driver
Hello,
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 11:34:04PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 08:16:31AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > I suggested that some time ago with limited success, see
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200129115516.zsvxu56e6h7gheiw@pathway.suse.cz/
> > .
> >
> > > In the meantime I would prefer using %d when we have integer
> > > error. We should not see these error messages anyway ;)
> >
> > I don't agree. Error messages are supposed to be helpful and I prefer
> > some casting between error pointer and error int over emitting bare
> > numbers to the kernel log. (And additionally the uglyness might help to
> > convince the vsprintf guys that %de might be a good idea after all :-)
>
> Sorry, but I do not think that I want to introduce this pointless
> casting just to sway printk folks. Either we have proper way of
> formatting error codes, or we do not and we stick with what was working
> since forever.
You got me wrong. Getting an argument to rediscuss %de is just a minor
side reason for me. Getting an expressive error message is the relevant
reason.
There is also an inconsitence in what you suggest that I don't like. If
in a probe function devm_clk_get fails it should say "-ENODEV" but if
it's clk_enable that fails it should say "-5"?
Also "we stick with what was working since forever" is a poor argument.
Best regards
Uwe
--
Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König |
Industrial Linux Solutions | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists