From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752374AbeBSDVo (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Feb 2018 22:21:44 -0500 Received: from mail-ot0-f196.google.com ([74.125.82.196]:34466 "EHLO mail-ot0-f196.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752200AbeBSDVm (ORCPT ); Sun, 18 Feb 2018 22:21:42 -0500 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AH8x225E3tRUW0xrapcB+3pHct4EmZfY59aiz3p/5iMPtrAezkuYPHOviQ/RzboBvA8G39KLghrwfQ== Date: Sun, 18 Feb 2018 21:21:41 -0600 From: Rob Herring To: frowand.list@gmail.com Cc: pantelis.antoniou@konsulko.com, Pantelis Antoniou , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, geert@linux-m68k.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] of: improve reporting invalid overlay target path Message-ID: <20180219032141.lapcr32f4zqulvvb@rob-hp-laptop> References: <1518672946-7310-1-git-send-email-frowand.list@gmail.com> <1518672946-7310-5-git-send-email-frowand.list@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1518672946-7310-5-git-send-email-frowand.list@gmail.com> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170609 (1.8.3) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 09:35:46PM -0800, frowand.list@gmail.com wrote: > From: Frank Rowand > > Errors while developing the patch to create of_overlay_fdt_apply() > exposed inadequate error messages to debug problems when overlay > devicetree fragment nodes contain an invalid target path. Improve > the messages in find_target_node() to remedy this. > > Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand > --- > > changes from v2: > - add fragment node name as suggested by Geert > - existing error message printed short node name, thus not > discriminating between fragments; change to full node name > - existing error message printed node address, which is devicetree > internal debugging, not useful in an overlay apply error message; > remove node address from message > > drivers/of/overlay.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++------ > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/of/overlay.c b/drivers/of/overlay.c > index 5f6c5569e97d..852e566d7744 100644 > --- a/drivers/of/overlay.c > +++ b/drivers/of/overlay.c > @@ -488,20 +488,30 @@ static int build_changeset(struct overlay_changeset *ovcs) > */ > static struct device_node *find_target_node(struct device_node *info_node) > { > + struct device_node *node; > const char *path; > u32 val; > int ret; > > ret = of_property_read_u32(info_node, "target", &val); > - if (!ret) > - return of_find_node_by_phandle(val); > + if (!ret) { > + node = of_find_node_by_phandle(val); > + if (!node) > + pr_err("find target, node: %pOF, phandle 0x%x not found\n", I'm wondering if the core should print the error rather than having all the callers do it. The question is whether there are cases where failing is okay? I guess sometimes we use 0 to skip cells, but the core handle not printing an error in that case. Rob > + info_node, val); > + return node; > + } > > ret = of_property_read_string(info_node, "target-path", &path); > - if (!ret) > - return of_find_node_by_path(path); > + if (!ret) { > + node = of_find_node_by_path(path); > + if (!node) > + pr_err("find target, node: %pOF, path '%s' not found\n", > + info_node, path); > + return node; > + } > > - pr_err("Failed to find target for node %p (%s)\n", > - info_node, info_node->name); > + pr_err("find target, node: %pOF, no target property\n", info_node); > > return NULL; > } > -- > Frank Rowand >