[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202310311354329a21a9d0@mail.local>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2023 14:54:32 +0100
From: Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com>
To: "Miclaus, Antoniu" <Antoniu.Miclaus@...log.com>
Cc: Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Alessandro Zummo <a.zummo@...ertech.it>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
"linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rtc@...r.kernel.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] drivers: rtc: max31335: initial commit
On 31/10/2023 11:23:49+0000, Miclaus, Antoniu wrote:
> > > + if (status != MAX31335_STATUS1_DEFAULT)
> > > + dev_err_probe(&client->dev, -EINVAL,
> > > + "Unable to read from device.\n");
> > > +
> >
> > That is misleading. The device returned an unexpected status.
> > I don't know if this really reflects a problem, but it is not
> > "Unable to read from device".
> >
>
> Since the device lacks an ID register, I found this as a suitable
> replacement for checking that the communication with the
> device actually works before the probe function finishes
> successfully.
>
> I will be more specific in the dev_err_probe message in the
> upcoming patch version.
>
What if this is a transient bus error and the device is actually present
and working?
don't like this kind of check, they are not usually useful.
--
Alexandre Belloni, co-owner and COO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists