Dnia Tue, Sep 07, 2021 at 10:55:52AM -0700, Guenter Roeck napisał(a):
On Tue, Sep 07, 2021 at 07:49:36PM +0200, Krzysztof Adamski wrote:Dnia Tue, Sep 07, 2021 at 08:46:22AM -0700, Guenter Roeck napisał(a): > > +void tmp421_probe_child_from_dt(struct i2c_client *client, > > + struct device_node *child, > > + struct tmp421_data *data) > > + > > +{ > > + struct device *dev = &client->dev; > > + u32 i; > > + int err; > > + > > + err = of_property_read_u32(child, "reg", &i); > > + if (err) { > > + dev_err(dev, "missing reg property of %pOFn\n", child); > > + return; > > Report to caller > My idea was to make those errors in DT non-critical. I.e. if one of the child nodes is not well structured, I just skip it but continue the probing. Do you think it should be considered critical and I should abort the whole probe function as soon as I detect such DT errors, instead?Yes, I do think so. Otherwise people will just generate bad DT files and never fix them or even on purpose ignore the error messages. I don't want to see such messages in a production system. On a side note, I do not accept dev_err/pr_err if the error is ignored. Either it is an error, or it isn't.
Makes sense - if it's an error, it should be reported as such, otherwise it's just a warning. I'll change the code to fail on DT errors in v2. Thank you, Krzysztof
