From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "David E. Box" Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 2/5] i2c-designware-baytrail: fix typo in error path Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 10:04:27 -0800 Message-ID: <20150211180427.GG14753@pathfinder> References: <1423587970-19136-1-git-send-email-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <1423587970-19136-2-git-send-email-andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> <20150211164611.GA2712@katana> <1423673991.31903.535.camel@linux.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1423673991.31903.535.camel-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-i2c-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Andy Shevchenko Cc: Wolfram Sang , Mika Westerberg , linux-i2c-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Jarkko Nikula List-Id: linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 06:59:51PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Wed, 2015-02-11 at 17:46 +0100, Wolfram Sang wrote: > > > + PUNIT_SEMAPHORE, &sem); > > > + if (ret) > > > dev_err(dev->dev, "iosf failed to read punit semaphore\n"); > > > else > > > dev_err(dev->dev, "PUNIT SEM: %d\n", sem); > > > > Shouldn't the latter be a dev_dbg? > > For me it seems not. Here is error patch and we have already in error > recovery, so, intention to see if the semaphore becomes alive after > reset. Am I right, David? Yes. We've timed out by this section of code so we want to verify the semaphore was reset. Failure to read the semaphore though is a separate error as well. Dave > > > -- > Andy Shevchenko > Intel Finland Oy >