On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Bartosz Golaszewski <[email protected]> wrote: > 2017-05-30 20:59 GMT+02:00 Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]>: >> On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 11:58 AM, Bartosz Golaszewski <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Indicate the error number and make the message a bit more elaborate. >> >>> + dev_err(dev, >>> + "adding gpiochip failed: %d (base: %d, >>> ngpio: %d)\n", >>> + ret, base, base < 0 ? ngpio : base + ngpio); >> >> You may consider to use >> 'gpio_mockup_add' instead of 'adding gpiochip'. The latter points the >> reader first to gpiochip_add family of functions while you run a >> wrapper on top of it. >> > > But this message can also be emitted if the module params are invalid, > in which case we don't even enter gpio_mockup_add().
...which unveils bad phrasing in the message. In that case "adding gpiochip" is also misleading. I dunno if it requires separate patch to fix the phrasing, though it would be nice to make it more clear for both cases, or even split to two cases. -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
