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

[Alex Courbot <acourbot@nvidia.com>]

On 12/04/2013 03:15 PM, Alex Courbot wrote:
> 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.

Looking twice, all the call sites you replaced already used 
desc_to_gpio() or have a valid descriptor around, so please ignore that 
comment.

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