lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Feb]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 06/18] m68k: Replace setup_irq() by request_irq()
On Wed, 26 Feb 2020, Greg Ungerer wrote:

> On 26/2/20 4:39 pm, Finn Thain wrote:
> >
> > If -EBUSY means the end user has misconfigured something, printing
> > "request_irq failed" would be helpful. But does that still happen?
>
> I have seen it many times. Its not at all difficult to get interrupt
> assignments wrong, duplicated, or otherwise mistaken when creating
> device trees. Not so much m68k/coldfire platforms where they are most
> commonly hard coded.
>

I was thinking of end users and production builds. You seem to be
concerned about developers. Catering to developers argues for pr_debug()
here, if anything.

You say you've seen -16 errors "many times". Have you also seen -22? Did
the ability to distinguish these values help you to fix your device tree?

> > ...
> >
> > BTW, one of the benefits of "%s: request_irq failed" is that a
> > compilation unit with multiple request_irq calls permits the compiler
> > to coalesce all duplicated format strings. Whereas, that's not
> > possible with "foo: request_irq failed" and "bar: request_irq failed".
>
> Given the wide variety of message text used with failed request_irq()
> calls it would be shear luck that this matched anything else. A quick
> grep shows that "%s: request_irq() failed\n" has no other exact matches
> in the current kernel source.
>

You are overlooking the patches in this series that produce multiple
identical format strings.

And the present lack of consistency isn't a great argument for more
inconsistency IMO.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-02-26 23:33    [W:1.282 / U:0.024 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site