From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933130AbcCNUUd (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Mar 2016 16:20:33 -0400 Received: from down.free-electrons.com ([37.187.137.238]:33198 "EHLO mail.free-electrons.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753187AbcCNUUa (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Mar 2016 16:20:30 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 21:19:58 +0100 From: Alexandre Belloni To: Javier Martinez Canillas Cc: Joe Perches , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org, Krzysztof Kozlowski , rtc-linux@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtc: s3c: Don't print an error on probe deferral Message-ID: <20160314201958.GB28277@piout.net> References: <1457982308-29848-1-git-send-email-javier@osg.samsung.com> <1457982675.11972.119.camel@perches.com> <56E7119B.9060900@osg.samsung.com> <1457984317.11972.123.camel@perches.com> <56E71825.5070104@osg.samsung.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56E71825.5070104@osg.samsung.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 14/03/2016 at 16:59:33 -0300, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote : > Hello Joe, > > On 03/14/2016 04:38 PM, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 16:31 -0300, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > >> On 03/14/2016 04:11 PM, Joe Perches wrote:> > On Mon, 2016-03-14 at 16:05 -0300, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote: > >>>> > >>>> The clock and source clock looked up by the driver may not be available > >>>> just because the clock controller driver was not probed yet so printing > >>>> an error in this case is not correct and only adds confusion to users. > >>>> > >>>> However, knowing that a driver's probe was deferred may be useful so it > >>>> can be printed as debug information. > >>> [] > >>>> > >>>> diff --git a/drivers/rtc/rtc-s3c.c b/drivers/rtc/rtc-s3c.c > >>> [] > >>>> > >>>> @@ -501,18 +501,27 @@ static int s3c_rtc_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > >>>> > >>>> info->rtc_clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, "rtc"); > >>>> if (IS_ERR(info->rtc_clk)) { > >>>> - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to find rtc clock\n"); > >>>> - return PTR_ERR(info->rtc_clk); > >>>> + ret = PTR_ERR(info->rtc_clk); > >>>> + if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER) > >>>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to find rtc clock\n"); > >>>> + else > >>>> + dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "probe deferred due rtc clock\n"); > >>>> + return ret; > >>>> } > >>>> clk_prepare_enable(info->rtc_clk); > >>>> > >>>> if (info->data->needs_src_clk) { > >>>> info->rtc_src_clk = devm_clk_get(&pdev->dev, "rtc_src"); > >>>> if (IS_ERR(info->rtc_src_clk)) { > >>>> - dev_err(&pdev->dev, > >>>> - "failed to find rtc source clock\n"); > >>>> + ret = PTR_ERR(info->rtc_src_clk); > >>>> + if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER) > >>>> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, > >>>> + "failed to find rtc source clock\n"); > >>>> + else > >>>> + dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, > >>>> + "probe deferred due rtc source clock\n"); > >>>> clk_disable_unprepare(info->rtc_clk); > >>>> - return PTR_ERR(info->rtc_src_clk); > >>>> + return ret; > >>>> } > >>>> clk_prepare_enable(info->rtc_src_clk); > >>>> } > >>> Maybe the debug logging messages could be object->action like: > >>> > >>> rtc clock probe deferred > >>> rtc source clock probe deferred > >>> > >> I found your suggested messages harder to read and more confusing. The > >> action that happens is a probe function deferral and that is caused by > >> a missing resource needed by the driver (clocks in this case). > >> > >> But your messages seems to imply that the probe deferred action happens > >> to a clock, it sounds like "rtc clock disabled" and that's not correct. > > > > OK, then please change "due" to "due to" or "for" in your messages > > because they make little sense now. > > > > I don't think they make little sense now since even a non-native english > speaker like me can understand it :) > > But yes, it's cryptic at the very least. That's the problem with long text > and the 80 char limit to make checkpatch.pl happy. I guess I can just move > the message a little bit even if that will make to not be properly aligned. > checkpatch will not complain for messages but it will definitively complain if they are not properly aligned:) -- Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering http://free-electrons.com