[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <219efcc7-ca05-a7d1-5943-d34a42f0d49f@canonical.com>
Date: Mon, 10 May 2021 08:20:52 -0400
From: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...onical.com>
To: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>,
Edmundo Carmona Antoranz <eantoranz@...il.com>
Cc: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr>,
cw00.choi@...sung.com, b.zolnierkie@...sung.com,
a.zummo@...ertech.it, linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtc: max77686: Remove some dead code
On 09/05/2021 17:06, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> On 08/05/2021 18:06:03-0600, Edmundo Carmona Antoranz wrote:
>> On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 10:59 AM Christophe JAILLET
>> <christophe.jaillet@...adoo.fr> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Following the recent conversations, I think it might make sense to do
>>>> dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to register RTC device: %pe\n", info->rtc_dev);
>>>>
>>>> Is that right?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, it is right, but it should be done in another patch.
>>>
>>> Would you like to give it a try?
>>>
>> Sure, I'll have the patch ready to send it when I see yours on next.
>
> Does it make sense to print anything at all? Who would use the output?
> Is anyone actually going to read it?
If the RTC core does not print the message, it should be
dev_err_probe(). However the first is recently preferred - RTC core
should do it for all drivers. I find such error messages useful - helps
easily spotting regressions via dmesg -l err.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
Powered by blists - more mailing lists