| Message ID | 20200226103901.21520-1-tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com |
|---|---|
| State | Rejected |
| Headers | show |
| Series | i2c:i2c-core-of:remove redundant dev_err message | expand |
On 2/26/20 11:39 AM, tangbin wrote: > of_i2c_register_device already contains error message, so remove > the redundant dev_err message > > Signed-off-by: tangbin <tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com> > --- > drivers/i2c/i2c-core-of.c | 6 +----- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-of.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-of.c > index 6787c1f71..7b0a786d3 100644 > --- a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-of.c > +++ b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-of.c > @@ -103,9 +103,7 @@ void of_i2c_register_devices(struct i2c_adapter *adap) > > client = of_i2c_register_device(adap, node); > if (IS_ERR(client)) { > - dev_err(&adap->dev, > - "Failed to create I2C device for %pOF\n", > - node); > + return PTR_ERR(client); This looks like an unrelated (and wrong) change. Why would you alter the semantics of of_i2c_register_devices()? Besides, this function doesn't have a return value.
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:58:41AM +0100, Francesco Lavra wrote: > On 2/26/20 11:39 AM, tangbin wrote: > > of_i2c_register_device already contains error message, so remove > > the redundant dev_err message > > > > Signed-off-by: tangbin <tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com> > > --- > > drivers/i2c/i2c-core-of.c | 6 +----- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-of.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-of.c > > index 6787c1f71..7b0a786d3 100644 > > --- a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-of.c > > +++ b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-of.c > > @@ -103,9 +103,7 @@ void of_i2c_register_devices(struct i2c_adapter *adap) > > client = of_i2c_register_device(adap, node); > > if (IS_ERR(client)) { > > - dev_err(&adap->dev, > > - "Failed to create I2C device for %pOF\n", > > - node); > > + return PTR_ERR(client); > > This looks like an unrelated (and wrong) change. Why would you alter the > semantics of of_i2c_register_devices()? Besides, this function doesn't have > a return value. Right. This is not correct. In general, tangbin has a point, the error reporting is doubled. Lower layers already report, so both(!) callers of of_i2c_register_device do not need to. Since I am refactoring all this anyhow in "[RFC PATCH 5/7] i2c: of: error message unification", I think I will just drop error reporting in the callers there when resending the series (giving tanbin credits for the removal). Is this okay with everyone?
diff --git a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-of.c b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-of.c index 6787c1f71..7b0a786d3 100644 --- a/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-of.c +++ b/drivers/i2c/i2c-core-of.c @@ -103,9 +103,7 @@ void of_i2c_register_devices(struct i2c_adapter *adap) client = of_i2c_register_device(adap, node); if (IS_ERR(client)) { - dev_err(&adap->dev, - "Failed to create I2C device for %pOF\n", - node); + return PTR_ERR(client); of_node_clear_flag(node, OF_POPULATED); } } @@ -246,8 +244,6 @@ static int of_i2c_notify(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long action, client = of_i2c_register_device(adap, rd->dn); if (IS_ERR(client)) { - dev_err(&adap->dev, "failed to create client for '%pOF'\n", - rd->dn); put_device(&adap->dev); of_node_clear_flag(rd->dn, OF_POPULATED); return notifier_from_errno(PTR_ERR(client));
of_i2c_register_device already contains error message, so remove the redundant dev_err message Signed-off-by: tangbin <tangbin@cmss.chinamobile.com> --- drivers/i2c/i2c-core-of.c | 6 +----- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)