Hi Frank, On 26/02/20 04:53, Frank Rowand wrote: > On 2/25/20 10:45 AM, Luca Ceresoli wrote: >> For some of its error paths, of_resolve_phandles() only logs a very generic >> error which does not help much in finding the origin of the problem: >> >> OF: resolver: overlay phandle fixup failed: -22 >> >> Add error messages for all the error paths that don't have one. Now a >> specific message is always emitted, thus also remove the generic catch-all >> message emitted before returning. >> >> For example, in case a DT overlay has a fixup node that is not present in >> the base DT __symbols__, this error is now logged: >> >> OF: resolver: node gpio9 not found in base DT, fixup failed >> >> Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <luca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> >> I don't know in detail the meaning of the adjust_local_phandle_references() >> and update_usages_of_a_phandle_reference() error paths, thus I have put >> pretty generic messages. Any suggestion on better wording would be welcome. > > If you have not read the code to understand what the meaning of > the errors are, you should not be suggesting changes to the error > messages. > > Only one of the issues detected as errors can possibly be something > other than an error either in the resolver.c code or the dtc > compiler -- a missing symbol in the live devicetree. This may > be because of failing to compile the base devicetree without > symbols, depending on a symbol from another overlay where the > other overlay has not been applied, or depending on a symbol > from another overlay where the other overlay is applied but > the overlay was not compiled with symbols. (Not meant to be > an exhaustive list, but it might be.) Thus the missing > symbol problem might be fixable without a fix to kernel > code. The error message philosophy for overlay related > errors is to minimize error messages that help diagnose > the precise cause of a kernel code bug, with the intent > of keeping the code more compact and readable. When a > bug occurs, debugging messages can be added for the > debug session. Got it, sorry about that. > Following this philosophy, only the message in the second > patch chunk is ok. Then I think you can apply the v1 patch which only contains the message about the problem I experienced, and which was caused by an incorrect DTO: https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1243987/ Just ignore the note saying the patch is not for mainline, it's wrong. -- Luca
