Re: [RFC PATCH 0/9] dt: dependencies (for deterministic driver initialization order based on the DT)

[Alexander Holler]

Am 14.05.2014 19:53, schrieb Alexander Holler:
> Am 14.05.2014 19:45, schrieb Alexander Holler:
>
> > One of the biggest problem of the deferred probe stuff is the problem
> > how to identify real problems if everything ends up with a deferred
> > probe when an error occurs? That means if you display an error whenever
> > something is deferred, the log becomes almost unreadable. If you don't
> > display an error, you never will see an error. And how do you display
> > the real error when deferred probes finally do fail? The deferred probe
> > stuff doesn't has any information about the underlying error, so it
> > can't display it.
>
> And that is a real problem. I've recently tried to identify why a driver
> failed and it was a nightmare because nothing offered any message (debug
> or not) when a probe was deferred. So I had to insert tons of printks to
> walk upwards to find the finally place where the probe failed.
> Everything afterwards just has forwarded the -EPROBE_DEFER without
> printing any message.

To add some numbers, I had to insert around 20-30 printks in around 10 
or more files to find the underlying problem. Having to do such whenever 
an error happens because everything assumes the error will disappear in 
a later try, which doesn't happen for real errors, is just a nightmare.

Regards,

Alexander Holler

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/