Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] mfd: lubbock_io: add lubbock_io board

[Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:29:19AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2015, Robert Jarzmik wrote:
> > >> +	if (ret) {
> > >> +		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Couldn't request main irq : ret = %d\n",
> > >> +			ret);
> > >
> > > I'm not keen on this type of formatting.  Besides the system will
> > > print out the returned error on failure.
> > Well, it will print -EINVAL or -ENODEV. When I'll receive an request on the
> > driver with -ENODEV, how will I know it will come from this request_irq() or
> > another part of the code ... Well I can remove it if you want, but I think it's
> > an error.
> 
> I'm not asking you to remove the entire message, just the junk at the
> end.

No.  Leave it.  If request_irq() returns -ENODEV or -ENXIO, you'll
just get the "Couldn't request main irq" message but without the
error code printed.

What I'd suggest (and always have done) is:

	dev_err(&pdev->dev, "couldn't request main irq%d: %d\n",
		irq, ret);

but I guess printing the IRQ number no longer makes sense with todays
dynamic mapping of logical IRQ numbers, as it is no longer meaningful.

-- 
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 10.5Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.