On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 04:45:00PM -0400, Jean-Francois Dagenais wrote: > > > On Apr 18, 2019, at 16:13, Guenter Roeck <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> + if (IS_ERR(data->cooling_dev)) { > >> + err = PTR_ERR(data->cooling_dev); > >> + dev_err(&client->dev, > >> + "Failed to register as cooling device (%d)\n", err); > > > > As mentioned in my other mail, this message adds zero value. Please drop. > > How does one distinguish the different failures which can occur within a probe > function then. I know it is only useful for system integrators while debugging > DTS for example. But I find my self always having to insert these kind of > messages > at each "return" statements of a failing probe implementation. I just think > it's > nice for developers which can use the info to quickly troubleshoot the > problem. > > I won't fight this though. You are maintainer of this subsys so... >
Yes, I know there are peple who like a lot of messages. I don't - it happend to me too often that the actual important message(s) get lost in the noise. Anyway, see below. > > > >> + return err; > > > > Sorry, I won't accept this. > > You mean, you won't accept v3, but a v4 without the dev_err? > I won't accept v3 due to the error return, which may be considered a regression for those who don't care about using the driver with the thermal subsystem. If you insist on an extra message, I'll accept a dev_warn. > Perhaps also, we should wait a v4 which would use your new devm_register... ? Your call, but there is no guarantee that this series will ever be accepted. The thermal maintainers may object to the new devm function. Guenter
