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.