Re: [PATCH 1/4] gpiolib: unify pr_* messages format

[Alex Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>]

On 12/04/2013 04:03 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> This patch includes following amendments:
>   1) use "?" as a label when last is not defined in gpiod_*;

"when last is not defined" -> "when none is defined" ?

>   2) whenever it's possilbe gpiod_* are used;

s/possilbe/possible

>   3) print a function name, if it's already used in other messages.
>
> Additionally it fixes an indentation in few places.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>

Acked-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>

Nice cleanup. I wonder if we should not make the GPIO label mandatory in 
some future patch and always use it in error messages (and also build it 
from dev_name(dev) and con_id in gpiod_get()).

One thing I wonder though: are you *absolutely* sure that none of the 
gpiod_*() log functions you are using can be called with a NULL desc? If 
you are not, it might be worth to make them more robust to this case 
that would otherwise make the kernel crash.

Might be even better if we could get rid of these desc_to_gpio() calls 
and display something like "desc->chip->label[gpio_chip_hwgpio(desc)]" 
in the log instead of "gpio-desc_to_gpio(desc)".

(last suggestion is just a suggestion though, I'm ok with this patch as 
long as you can guarantee none of the desc_to_gpio(desc) calls will crash)

Alex.