Re: [PATCH] driver core: fw_devlink: Don't warn in fw_devlink_dev_sync_state()

["Diederik de Haas" <didi.debian@cknow.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1775 bytes --]

On Thu Sep 25, 2025 at 4:26 PM CEST, Ulf Hansson wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Sept 2025 at 15:59, Diederik de Haas <didi.debian@cknow.org> wrote:
>> On Thu Sep 25, 2025 at 1:59 PM CEST, Ulf Hansson wrote:
>> > Due to the wider deployment of the ->sync_state() support, for PM domains
>> > for example, we are receiving reports about the messages that are being
>> > logged in fw_devlink_dev_sync_state(). In particular as they are at the
>> > warning level, which doesn't seem correct.
>> >
>> > Even if it certainly is useful to know that the ->sync_state() condition
>> > could not be met, there may be nothing wrong with it. For example, a driver
>> > may be built as module and are still waiting to be initialized/probed.
>>
>> "there may be nothing wrong with it" doesn't sound very convincing.
>> So there *can* be something wrong with it, so warning sounds
>> appropriate? If there is (certainly) something wrong with it, I expect
>> an error.
>
> Sorry if I was too vague. See more below.
>
>> FWIW: most of my drivers/modules are built as modules.
>> I do seem to run into 'problems' more then average because of that, but
>> to me it just signals there is something wrong ... which should be
>> fixed. Not silenced.
>
> Well, why is it wrong to have drivers being built as modules? They

Nothing wrong with it at all. It just means I notice issues (like [1])
that others may not who have modules built-in.

[1] a52dffaa46c2 ("drm/rockchip: vop2: make vp registers nonvolatile")

> just happen to be probed at some point later, then why should we have
> warnings printed in the log due to this?

I thought the failure of the check was more important then it apparently
is. Then warning about it does seem excessive.

Cheers,
  Diederik

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]