linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] hwmon: Add support for Amphenol ChipCap 2

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <e0319f92-b0c7-4f26-814d-f86ac410b2e1@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Thu, 9 Nov 2023 08:25:51 -0800
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>
To:     Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
        Javier Carrasco <javier.carrasco.cruz@...il.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
        Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
        Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-hwmon@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] hwmon: Add support for Amphenol ChipCap 2

On 11/9/23 08:18, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 09/11/2023 15:55, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>>>> +	if (IS_ERR(data->hwmon)) {
>>>> +		ret = PTR_ERR(data->hwmon);
>>>> +		goto cleanup;
>>>> +	}
>>>> +
>>>> +	return 0;
>>>> +
>>>> +cleanup:
>>>> +	if (cc2_disable(data))
>>>> +		dev_dbg(dev, "Failed to disable device");
>>>> +
>>>> +	return dev_err_probe(dev, ret,
>>>> +			     "Unable to register hwmon device\n");
>>>
>>> Drop or move to each error path.
>>>
>> This actually follows Documentation/process/coding-style.rst, chapter 7
>> (Centralized exiting of functions).
> 
> The point is that centralized message of error is useless. Probe failure
> is already handled by core, thus another message doing the same is
> redundant. What is needed to explain the true reason of failure, thus
> the error message should be next to each type of failure. Missing
> regulator? Say it. Missing clock? Say something else.
> 

Agreed, you have a point.

Thanks,
Guenter