On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 04:04:20PM +0200, Michael Walle wrote:
Am 2022-04-07 15:56, schrieb Vladimir Oltean:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 03:06:25PM +0200, Michael Walle wrote:
> > Due to missing prerequisites the probe of the felix switch might be
> > deferred:
> > [ 4.435305] mscc_felix 0000:00:00.5: Failed to register DSA
> > switch: -517
> >
> > It's not an error. Use dev_err_probe() to demote the error to a debug
> > message. While at it, replace all the dev_err()'s in the probe with
> > dev_err_probe().
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Michael Walle <michael@xxxxxxxx>
> > ---
>
> Please limit the dev_err_probe() to dsa_register_switch(). The resource
> that is missing is the DSA master, see of_find_net_device_by_node().
> The others cannot possibly return -EPROBE_DEFER.
This was my rationale (from the function doc):
* Note that it is deemed acceptable to use this function for error
* prints during probe even if the @err is known to never be -EPROBE_DEFER.
* The benefit compared to a normal dev_err() is the standardized format
* of the error code and the fact that the error code is returned.
In any case I don't have a strong opinion.
Take this case:
err = -ENOMEM;
- dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to allocate driver memory\n");
+ dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, err, "Failed to allocate driver memory\n");
(1) there is no need to print ENOMEM if we say "failed to allocate memory"
(2) we don't use the return value of dev_err_probe() anyway, we have
actual teardown to do (pci_disable_device).
(3) we _surely_ know that -ENOMEM != -EPROBE_DEFER
> >
> > Should this be a patch with a Fixes tag?
>
> Whichever way you wish, no preference.
I'll limit it to just the one dev_err() and add a Fixes,
there might be scripts out there who greps dmesg for errors.
Ok.