From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [112.213.38.117]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AD7CEC0015E for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2023 10:53:32 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=lunn.ch header.i=@lunn.ch header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20171124 header.b=rsR/yOJL; dkim-atps=neutral Received: from boromir.ozlabs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4RFX5l2Y9Fz2ytr for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2023 20:53:31 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=lunn.ch header.i=@lunn.ch header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=20171124 header.b=rsR/yOJL; dkim-atps=neutral Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=lunn.ch (client-ip=156.67.10.101; helo=vps0.lunn.ch; envelope-from=andrew@lunn.ch; receiver=lists.ozlabs.org) Received: from vps0.lunn.ch (vps0.lunn.ch [156.67.10.101]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (prime256v1) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4RFX4p3Vvqz2xq6 for ; Tue, 1 Aug 2023 20:52:42 +1000 (AEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lunn.ch; s=20171124; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Disposition:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject: Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To:References; bh=BbIqX++u7tFTSva0KCFAR2Y+7S4v0rtzgJGAQYO1KzM=; b=rsR/yOJL9SkjbpT5u7oTNnltlY yg9FUDUbGrezFAR7Ac/0PjGnwTNyoJAamuIjhPGujcC7XwpW9ndx6q4orSPtvEd6YYtcTw8Hsd4+i uYtEQc/x7XyLZwul+/LOF9QPQoitYKTVSCm5coM9br7dxcY5DTTy+gl1PfpjFeab3HqM=; Received: from andrew by vps0.lunn.ch with local (Exim 4.94.2) (envelope-from ) id 1qQmzN-002nH2-Hd; Tue, 01 Aug 2023 12:52:29 +0200 Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2023 12:52:29 +0200 From: Andrew Lunn To: Herve Codina Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 23/28] net: wan: framer: Add support for the Lantiq PEF2256 framer Message-ID: References: <20230726150225.483464-1-herve.codina@bootlin.com> <20230726150225.483464-24-herve.codina@bootlin.com> <4adae593-c428-4910-882e-7247727cf501@lunn.ch> <20230801124401.3883d16c@bootlin.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20230801124401.3883d16c@bootlin.com> X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, Thomas Petazzoni , Xiubo Li , Linus Walleij , Jaroslav Kysela , Eric Dumazet , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Fabio Estevam , Qiang Zhao , Shengjiu Wang , Lee Jones , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Conor Dooley , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nicolin Chen , linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org, Rob Herring , Takashi Iwai , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Randy Dunlap , Liam Girdwood , Li Yang , Mark Brown , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, "David S. Miller" Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" > > > +static void pef2256_isr_default_handler(struct pef2256 *pef2256, u8 nbr, u8 isr) > > > +{ > > > + dev_warn(pef2256->dev, "ISR%u: 0x%02x not handled\n", nbr, isr); > > > +} > > > > Should this be rate limited? It is going to be very noise if it gets > > called once per frame time. > > This function should not be called. > It is wired on some interrupts and these interrupts should not be triggered. > It they fired, something was wrong. > > I would prefer to keep this dev_warn() to keep the user informed about the > problem. I would definitely keep it, but rate limit it. dev_warn_ratelimited(). Andrew