From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sylvester.nawrocki@gmail.com (Sylwester Nawrocki) Date: Wed, 15 May 2013 23:20:08 +0200 Subject: [RFC 2/4] dma: add dmaengine driver for Samsung s3c24xx SoCs In-Reply-To: <201305152231.52423.heiko@sntech.de> References: <201305111330.05046.heiko@sntech.de> <201305111331.25405.heiko@sntech.de> <201305152231.52423.heiko@sntech.de> Message-ID: <5193FC08.5040002@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 05/15/2013 10:31 PM, Heiko St?bner wrote: >>> + BUG(); >> > >> > Isn't that a bit nasty. This macro should be used with care and we >> > should recover if possible. dev_err()? > > runtime_config already denies any settings not in the 1,2 or 4bytes range - > the default-part should therefore never be reached. So if any other value > magically appears in the register and triggers the default-part, something is > seriously wrong. So my guess is, the BUG might be appropriate. > > On the other hand the whole default+BUG part could also simply go away, for > the same reasons. IMHO BUG() is not needed at all. As Linus suggested dev_err() is such case or WARN_ON() would be more appropriate. This has been discussed in the past extensively, not sure if you are aware of the other Linus' opinion on BUG()/BUG_ON() proliferation: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/9/27/461 Regards, Sylwester