From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lee Jones Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2016 15:36:15 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mfd: dm355evm_msp: Refactoring for add_child() Message-Id: <20160809153615.GU5243@dell> List-Id: References: <4dcb4cab-e2cc-87c0-9cfc-d140f185254b@users.sourceforge.net> <20160805075511.GN5243@dell> <0a2ef320-a95a-2611-2554-a2a83838fb9b@users.sourceforge.net> <20160809093022.GU5243@dell> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To: SF Markus Elfring Cc: LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall On Tue, 09 Aug 2016, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > But the change-log in this patch says "I did some stuff". > > What stuff did you change? Which review comments did you > > tend to? >=20 > I imagine that I could increase the description granularity > to a detail level which you might also not like. Right. A certain level of common sense needs to be exercised. > >>>> +put_device: > >>>> + platform_device_put(pdev); > >>>> + dev_err(&client->dev, "failed to add device %s\n", name); > >>> > >>> ... and remove this line. > >> > >> Do you really want that this error message should be deleted? > >> > >> How does this response fit to your request to introduce such a message > >> for the function "add_numbered_child" (on 2016-06-08)? > >> https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg1162299.h= tml > >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/6/8/467 > >=20 > > You've lost the context. >=20 > I interpreted the suggested message adjustments as separate changes. > So I wondered about a different handling for the Linux modules > "dm355evm_msp" and "twl-core". In what way? The coding standards should be the same. > > The "..." is meant to intimate that it > > follows on from a previous comment. In this case: > >=20 > >> > status =3D platform_device_add_data(pdev, pdata, pdata_len); > >> > if (status < 0) { > >> > dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "can't add platform_data\n"); > >> > >> Please take the opportunity to convert these to dev_err()s. > >=20 > > So, convert the specific dev_dbg() calls to dev_err() and remove the > > contentless one at the bottom. >=20 > It seems then that you would like to get rid of an error message > at the end while increasing the importance of a related information. Yes. Remove the pointless error message at the bottom and provide an informative one, describing why things went wrong. Remember; common sense often prevails. --=20 Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org =E2=94=82 Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" = in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html