From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5B29513AA36; Tue, 27 Feb 2024 20:58:22 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709067502; cv=none; b=ufIFS0W5tM29b7vudR6dcW/sNPena+V+DPO38H4lX3Y+PYjptyq1d1ddHOlj9ONzOY+5qGasDNy5/Dcnv8A5a04SatxGHO4DTEYZYqBUKq8qsEzMu8+x7wsYN91/VtSprJZU0MJjyaRScuDCy8lBa5u1sLj7C8ijjivJqGKHzUQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1709067502; c=relaxed/simple; bh=S4m9bTr9zzQmMMFY2/OXtF3VQx5pxQRtlH/CRZM8IfM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=BiNoe5K/lMudptGYflSMDjtAjqAA5N7QHiNzJ6EF40GpwvJbldM3LzUXyBUgxyYj8+4iuogrG9zhQdL4btq+KEeLqHWdE1BkhJ4yPGgoIBIZHD2xxYMYwBvJL/KNN4wUE2D0ZzuAR+Ka5f2LH/EFwmnMpD5ptIXbU8bvHQ0Pvks= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=eo6G1mRu; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="eo6G1mRu" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id ADEBAC43390; Tue, 27 Feb 2024 20:58:20 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1709067502; bh=S4m9bTr9zzQmMMFY2/OXtF3VQx5pxQRtlH/CRZM8IfM=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:References:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=eo6G1mRufXusc5lBh8VM/I4kP7svGiyBEr5GcRHlW2rjy8FQ6LMKLVCmTbh5uUzK7 /4wqI2mIBHYcUUZQjAwFoZvHuy/ey/pSoFbG5wUffKiJXrp1l8NWFz4wlZq+IfcDZT dfbMxAuBzypEcrjbDjDbjYrjhZ53lXcTchOKNeh8FSWjfgX6PAqyA92l64dGlyG2m9 3DKoCefKda353PzsCgR1KZYec9AoA5zN9HXoCtcA2+n0hoGVNtehajnKdNu0VtxE9O yhQXUFqPbtfuuRWgF2ql2N4iQHHM82e3MCiyW5UwCTvYGojZ1Tb2Wer35+iBh05+dA achG7ZtD0zjnw== From: Kalle Valo To: Javier Martinez Canillas Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Nishanth Menon , Breno Leitao , Li Zetao , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] wlcore: sdio: warn only once for wl12xx_sdio_raw_{read,write}() failures References: <20240227002059.379267-1-javierm@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 22:58:18 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20240227002059.379267-1-javierm@redhat.com> (Javier Martinez Canillas's message of "Tue, 27 Feb 2024 01:20:46 +0100") Message-ID: <8734tdaal1.fsf@kernel.org> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.2 (gnu/linux) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Javier Martinez Canillas writes: > Report these failures only once, instead of keep logging the warnings for > the same condition every time that a SDIO read or write is attempted. This > behaviour is spammy and unnecessarily pollutes the kernel log buffer. Removing error messages is not usually a good idea, it would be much better to fix the root cause. > For example, on an AM625 BeaglePlay board where accessing a SDIO WiFi chip > fails with an -110 error: > > $ dmesg | grep "sdio write\|read failed (-110)" | wc -l > 39 -110 is -ETIMEDOUT. Why is it timing out? > Signed-off-by: Javier Martinez Canillas > --- > > drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/sdio.c | 8 ++++---- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/sdio.c b/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/sdio.c > index eb5482ed76ae..47ecf33a0fbe 100644 > --- a/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/sdio.c > +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/ti/wlcore/sdio.c > @@ -75,8 +75,8 @@ static int __must_check wl12xx_sdio_raw_read(struct device *child, int addr, > > sdio_release_host(func); > > - if (WARN_ON(ret)) > - dev_err(child->parent, "sdio read failed (%d)\n", ret); > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(ret)) > + dev_err_once(child->parent, "sdio read failed (%d)\n", ret); WARN_ON() feels excessive here, maybe remove that entirely? But dev_err_ratelimited() feels more approriate than printing the error just once. -- https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-wireless/list/ https://wireless.wiki.kernel.org/en/developers/documentation/submittingpatches