Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] hwrng: add Rockchip SoC hwrng driver

[Dragan Simic]

Hello Uwe,

On 2024-06-23 02:20, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 22, 2024 at 10:45:22PM +0200, Dragan Simic wrote:
> > On 2024-06-22 22:26, Heiko Stübner wrote:
> > > Am Samstag, 22. Juni 2024, 12:29:33 CEST schrieb Dragan Simic:
> > > > On 2024-06-22 00:16, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > > > > On 6/21/24 20:13, Dragan Simic wrote:
> > > > >> On 2024-06-21 11:57, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > > > >>> On 21/06/2024 03:25, Daniel Golle wrote:
> > > > >>>> +    dev_info(&pdev->dev, "Registered Rockchip hwrng\n");
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Drop, driver should be silent on success.
> > > > >>
> > > [...]
> > > So really this message should be dropped or at least as Uwe suggests
> > > made a dev_dbg.
> >
> > As a note, "dmesg --level=err,warn", for example, is rather useful
> > when it comes to filtering the kernel messages to see only those that
> > are signs of a trouble.
>
> IMHO it's a bit sad, that there is such a long thread about something 
> so
> trivial, but I want to make a few points:
>
>  - not all dmesg implementations support this:
>
> 	root@machine:~ dmesg --level=err,warn
> 	dmesg: unrecognized option '--level=err,warn'
> 	BusyBox v1.36.1 () multi-call binary.
>
> 	Usage: dmesg [-cr] [-n LEVEL] [-s SIZE]
>
> 	Print or control the kernel ring buffer
>
> 		-c              Clear ring buffer after printing
> 		-n LEVEL        Set console logging level
> 		-s SIZE         Buffer size
> 		-r              Print raw message buffer
>
>  - Your argument that the output of this dev_info can easily be ignored
>    is a very weak reason to keep it.
>
>  - I personally consider it hard sometimes to accept feedback if I 
> think
>    it's wrong and there is a good reason to do it the way I want it.
>    But there are now three people opposing your position, who brought
>    forward (IMHO) good reasons and even a constructive alternative was
>    presented. Please stay open minded while weighting the options.
>    The questions to ask here include:
>
>     - How many people care for this message? During every boot? Is it
>       maybe enough for these people to check in /sys if the device
>       probed successfully? Or maybe even the absence of an error 
> message
>       is enough?
>     - How many people get this message and don't care about the
>       presented information? How many people are even annoyed by it?
>     - Is the delay and memory usage introduced by this message 
> justified
>       then, even if it's small?

I'm sorry if my responses caused any inconvenience.  I find most of your
points totally valid, but there are a couple of them I could continue
arguing about.  Though, as you also pointed out, my opinion has been
already outvoted, so I'll remain silent.