Re: [PATCH] rtc: max77686: Remove some dead code

[Christophe JAILLET]

Le 12/05/2021 à 18:13, Alexandre Belloni a écrit :
> On 10/05/2021 08:20:52-0400, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > On 09/05/2021 17:06, Alexandre Belloni wrote:
> > > On 08/05/2021 18:06:03-0600, Edmundo Carmona Antoranz wrote:
> > > > On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 10:59 AM Christophe JAILLET
> > > > <christophe.jaillet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > Following the recent conversations, I think it might make sense to do
> > > > > > dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to register RTC device: %pe\n", info->rtc_dev);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Is that right?
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, it is right, but it should be done in another patch.
> > > > >
> > > > > Would you like to give it a try?
> > > > Sure, I'll have the patch ready to send it when I see yours on next.
> > >
> > > Does it make sense to print anything at all? Who would use the output?
> > > Is anyone actually going to read it?
> >
> > If the RTC core does not print the message, it should be
> > dev_err_probe().  However the first is recently preferred - RTC core
> > should do it for all drivers.  I find such error messages useful - helps
> > easily spotting regressions via dmesg -l err.
>
> The only error path that will not print a message by default (it is
> dev_dbg) is when rtc-ops is NULL which I don't expect would regress
> anyway.
>
> A better way to remove the dead code would be to switch to
> devm_rtc_allocate_device/devm_rtc_register_device.

I don't follow you here.
Isn't devm_rtc_device_register = devm_rtc_allocate_device + 
devm_rtc_register_device?

What would be the benefit for switch to the latter?


> And even better would
> be to take that opportunity to set range_min and range_max ;)

Maybe, but this goes beyond my knowledge.
I'll let someone else propose a patch for it.

CJ