On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 4:04 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 6:57 AM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 14-01-19, 15:51, Amit Kucheria wrote:
> > > Make it clear that it is a failure if the cpufreq driver was unable to
> > > register as a cooling device. Makes it easier to find in logs and
> > > grepping for words like fail, err, warn.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Amit Kucheria <amit.kucheria@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c b/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c
> > > index dfd23245f778..6fff16113628 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/thermal/cpu_cooling.c
> > > @@ -774,7 +774,7 @@ of_cpufreq_cooling_register(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
> > >
> > > cdev = __cpufreq_cooling_register(np, policy, capacitance);
> > > if (IS_ERR(cdev)) {
> > > - pr_err("cpu_cooling: cpu%d is not running as cooling device: %ld\n",
> > > + pr_err("cpu_cooling: cpu%d failed to register as cooling device: %ld\n",
> > > policy->cpu, PTR_ERR(cdev));
> > > cdev = NULL;
> > > }
> >
> > Always keep such cleanup patches at the top, so the maintainers can
> > pick them up easily even if the entire series doesn't get in.
>
> Actually, if nothing in the series depends on this change and this
> change doesn't depend on anything in the series, why is it part of the
> series at all?
Indeed, I should've separated this from the series. Done now.
