Messages in this thread | | | From | David Brownell <> | Subject | Re: GPIO: Fix probe() error return in gpio driver probes | Date | Thu, 18 Dec 2008 10:16:27 -0800 |
| |
On Monday 15 December 2008, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > > > I was thinking that -EINVAL is almost the least informative > > > > diagnostic code possible, since so many places return it > > > > that it's usually hard to find out *which* invalid parameter > > > > triggered ... > > > > > > > > Is there a less-overloaded code you could return? > > > > > > -EINVAL sounds right to me, all that's really missing is dev_dbg() > > > messages in the drivers to log what the exact problem was.
Fair enough, though it just papers over how ambiguous -EINVAL is.
> > It might be more acceptable to be dev_err(), that way it will get > > printed no matter what debug options have been selected. If so, a > > seperate patch is probably in order to make the change. > > As far as I can see, such errors would be caused by development-time > mistakes, so dev_dbg() seems appropriate. dev_err() would make the > binaries larger for all end-users.
Right, dev_dbg() is the way to go. I'd ack a version of this patch which pairs these -EINVAL changes with dev_dbg() messages to make these problems less painful to track down. dev_err() is much abused.
- Dave
| |