Am Donnerstag, dem 01.08.2024 um 12:09 +0200 schrieb Uwe Kleine-König:
> Hello Martin,
>
> On Thu, Aug 01, 2024 at 09:52:01AM +0000, Kepplinger-Novakovic Martin
> wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, dem 01.08.2024 um 11:26 +0200 schrieb Uwe Kleine-
> > König:
> > > On Thu, Aug 01, 2024 at 11:12:55AM +0200, Martin Kepplinger-
> > > Novaković
> > > wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
> > > > b/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
> > > > index f1005bd0c41e3..cc7e7af71891f 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/video/backlight/pwm_bl.c
> > > > @@ -502,7 +502,8 @@ static int pwm_backlight_probe(struct
> > > > platform_device *pdev)
> > > > GPIOD_ASIS);
> > > > if (IS_ERR(pb->enable_gpio)) {
> > > > ret = dev_err_probe(&pdev->dev, PTR_ERR(pb-
> > > > > enable_gpio),
> > > > - "failed to acquire enable
> > > > GPIO\n");
> > > > + "failed to acquire enable
> > > > GPIO:
> > > > %ld\n",
> > > > + PTR_ERR(pb->enable_gpio));
> > >
> > > AFAIK dev_err_probe already emits the error code passed as 2nd
> > > parameter. So I wonder about this patch's benefit.
> > >
> >
> > It does. Other messages only take the deferred_probe_reason without
> > the
> > error code. It's actually fine if users properly enable debugging
> > after
> > seeing an error and then this change is not needed :)
>
> I'm unsure what you intend to say here. Do you agree that this patch
> doesn't need to be applied as it doesn't add any information to the
> emitted messages? Or do you think there is a value because "users
> don't
> need to enable debugging" then. In the latter case I don't see where
> users would see "failed to acquire enable GPIO" before, but not the
> value of the error code.
>
hi Uwe, sorry, I agree that this patch doesn't add any information. I
think it can be expected to look at debug when drivers don't probe.
thanks,
martin
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
