Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 20 Jan 2015 11:56:58 +0000 | From | Russell King - ARM Linux <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] mfd: lubbock_io: add lubbock_io board |
| |
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:29:19AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote: > On Mon, 19 Jan 2015, Robert Jarzmik wrote: > > >> + if (ret) { > > >> + dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Couldn't request main irq : ret = %d\n", > > >> + ret); > > > > > > I'm not keen on this type of formatting. Besides the system will > > > print out the returned error on failure. > > Well, it will print -EINVAL or -ENODEV. When I'll receive an request on the > > driver with -ENODEV, how will I know it will come from this request_irq() or > > another part of the code ... Well I can remove it if you want, but I think it's > > an error. > > I'm not asking you to remove the entire message, just the junk at the > end.
No. Leave it. If request_irq() returns -ENODEV or -ENXIO, you'll just get the "Couldn't request main irq" message but without the error code printed.
What I'd suggest (and always have done) is:
dev_err(&pdev->dev, "couldn't request main irq%d: %d\n", irq, ret);
but I guess printing the IRQ number no longer makes sense with todays dynamic mapping of logical IRQ numbers, as it is no longer meaningful.
-- FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 10.5Mbps down 400kbps up according to speedtest.net.
| |