Re: [PATCH v3 07/10] rtc: max77686: Use dev_warn() instead of pr_warn()
From: Javier Martinez Canillas
Date: Tue Jan 26 2016 - 21:50:44 EST
Hello Alexandre,
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:46 PM, Alexandre Belloni
<alexandre.belloni@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 27/01/2016 at 11:05:36 +0900, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote :
>> On 27.01.2016 10:53, Javier Martinez Canillas wrote:
>> > Hello Andi,
>> >
>> > Thanks a lot for your feedback and review.
>> >
>> > 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.
>>
>
> My stance on that is to never set a date that differs from the requested
> date. Else, userspace has no way of knowing whether this is an erroneous
> date or the real date when reading back.
>
> I think I had a look and the driver is already doing the right thing but
> the message is wrong.
>
That's correct.
> --
> Alexandre Belloni, Free Electrons
> Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android engineering
> http://free-electrons.com
Best regards,
Javier