From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752591AbcHIPev (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Aug 2016 11:34:51 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f41.google.com ([74.125.82.41]:38383 "EHLO mail-wm0-f41.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752054AbcHIPet (ORCPT ); Tue, 9 Aug 2016 11:34:49 -0400 Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 16:36:15 +0100 From: Lee Jones To: SF Markus Elfring Cc: LKML , kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, Julia Lawall Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mfd: dm355evm_msp: Refactoring for add_child() Message-ID: <20160809153615.GU5243@dell> References: <4dcb4cab-e2cc-87c0-9cfc-d140f185254b@users.sourceforge.net> <20160805075511.GN5243@dell> <0a2ef320-a95a-2611-2554-a2a83838fb9b@users.sourceforge.net> <20160809093022.GU5243@dell> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.2 (2016-07-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 09 Aug 2016, SF Markus Elfring wrote: > > But the change-log in this patch says "I did some stuff". > > What stuff did you change? Which review comments did you > > tend to? > > I imagine that I could increase the description granularity > to a detail level which you might also not like. Right. A certain level of common sense needs to be exercised. > >>>> +put_device: > >>>> + platform_device_put(pdev); > >>>> + dev_err(&client->dev, "failed to add device %s\n", name); > >>> > >>> ... and remove this line. > >> > >> Do you really want that this error message should be deleted? > >> > >> How does this response fit to your request to introduce such a message > >> for the function "add_numbered_child" (on 2016-06-08)? > >> https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org/msg1162299.html > >> https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/6/8/467 > > > > You've lost the context. > > I interpreted the suggested message adjustments as separate changes. > So I wondered about a different handling for the Linux modules > "dm355evm_msp" and "twl-core". In what way? The coding standards should be the same. > > The "..." is meant to intimate that it > > follows on from a previous comment. In this case: > > > >> > status = platform_device_add_data(pdev, pdata, pdata_len); > >> > if (status < 0) { > >> > dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "can't add platform_data\n"); > >> > >> Please take the opportunity to convert these to dev_err()s. > > > > So, convert the specific dev_dbg() calls to dev_err() and remove the > > contentless one at the bottom. > > It seems then that you would like to get rid of an error message > at the end while increasing the importance of a related information. Yes. Remove the pointless error message at the bottom and provide an informative one, describing why things went wrong. Remember; common sense often prevails. -- Lee Jones Linaro STMicroelectronics Landing Team Lead Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog