Re: [PATCH 5/5] iio:potentiostat:lmp91000: add '\n' on dev_err

[Joe Perches]

On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 09:49 +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 13:01:23 -0800 Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 14:22 -0300, Lucas Oshiro wrote:
> > > Add missing '\n' at the end of dev_err message on line 215.  
> > []
> > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/potentiostat/lmp91000.c b/drivers/iio/potentiostat/lmp91000.c  
> > []
> > > @@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ static int lmp91000_read_config(struct lmp91000_data *data)
> > >  	ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "ti,tia-gain-ohm", &val);
> > >  	if (ret) {
> > >  		if (!of_property_read_bool(np, "ti,external-tia-resistor")) {
> > > -			dev_err(dev, "no ti,tia-gain-ohm defined");
> > > +			dev_err(dev, "no ti,tia-gain-ohm defined\n");  
> > 
> > Perhaps a copy/paste error as the test is for
> > external-tia-resistor and not tia-gain-ohm
> > 
> It is an odd construct, but I think this is correct.  What it is actually
> saying is that, given that we don't have an external resistor, we care
> that the tia-gain-ohm isn't set (otherwise it wouldn't matter).
> 
> From the docs
>   - ti,external-tia-resistor: if the property ti,tia-gain-ohm is not defined this
>     needs to be set to signal that an external resistor value is being used.
> 
> So, it might be ideal to say that tia-gain-ohm is not defined and we do
> not have an external resistor specified.
> 
> So not wrong, but could be more informative!  So perhaps a follow up patch
> to tidy that up would be good.

Then thanks in advance for doing that.
cheers, Joe