Re: [PATCH v3 07/10] rtc: max77686: Use dev_warn() instead of pr_warn()

[Javier Martinez Canillas]

Hello Andi,

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:35 PM, Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On 01/26/2016 10:22 PM, Andi Shyti wrote:
>> >> Hi Javier,
>> >>
>> >>>           if (tm->tm_year < 100) {
>> >>> -            pr_warn("RTC can't handle year %d. Assume it's 2000.\n",
>> >>> -                1900 + tm->tm_year);
>> >>> +            dev_warn(info->dev,
>> >>> +                 "RTC can't handle year %d. Assume it's 2000\n",
>> >>> +                 1900 + tm->tm_year);
>> >>>               return -EINVAL;
>> >>
>> >> Because we are returning an error value, why not use dev_err()?
>> >>
>> >
>> > You are absolutely right. Since the driver was using pr_warn(), I used
>> > dev_warn() but dev_err() would had been correct.
>>
>> Wait. The message says that "2000 will be assumed" which is not an
>> error. The message indicates that driver will proceed, thus the warning.
>>
>> However the driver won't proceed because the max77686_rtc_set_time()
>> will abort. This came from max8997 which has the same issue.
>>
>> This means that either message should be changed (dev_err() without the
>> "assume" verb) or the function should not abort and set the year to
>> 2000+something (then dev_warn()... look at rtc-ds3234.c and rtc-mcp795.c).
>>
>> The easiest would be to choose #1 - no changes in the logic.
>
> Nevertheless, the function fails, and those who call
> max77686_rtc_tm_to_data() fail as well, so, we are printing
> warning, but behaving as error.
>
> Either we print error and return error, or we print warning, we
> set:
>
> tm->tm_year = 100; /* don't know if I got the logic right */
>
> and return 0
>
> Right?
>

I was thinking in moving the check at the start of the function so a
on error, the RTC sec/min/hour/etc registers are untouched.

> Thanks,
> Andi
> --

Best regards,
Javier