Andy Shevchenko writes: > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 5:27 PM Alexandre Belloni > <alexandre.belloni@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 09/11/2020 17:16:49+0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: >> > On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 4:32 PM Alexandre Belloni >> > <alexandre.belloni@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > > On 09/11/2020 16:17:40+0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > ... > >> > > > > + dev_err(pctldev->dev, "Pin %d direction as %s is not possible\n", >> > > > > + pin, input ? "input" : "output"); >> > > > >> > > > Do we need this noise? Isn't user space getting a proper error code as >> > > > per doc and can handle this? >> > > >> > > Why would userspace get the error code? >> > >> > Huh?! Why it shouldn't. How will users know if they are doing something wrong? >> > >> > > Userspace should never have to >> > > handle gpios directly or you are doing something wrong. >> > >> > This is true, but check how error codes are propagated to the user space. >> > >> >> your point is to remove an error message because the error may be >> propagated to userspace. My point is that userspace should never use >> gpios and the kernel has to be the consumer. > > Tell this to plenty of users of old sysfs interface and to libgpiod ones. > If what you are saying had been true, we would have never had the new > ABI for GPIOs. > >> I don't see how your answer >> is relevant here. > > I have an opposite opinion. > >> Did you already check all the call sites from the >> kernel too? > > If you think we have to print a message on each possible error case > (but not always the one) we will get lost in the messages disaster and > dmesg overflow. > It is consumer who should decide if the setting is critical or not to > be printed to user. I think the message is a valid one. I will change it to dev_err_ratelimited() - that should prevent the dmesg flooding. ---Lars -- Lars Povlsen, Microchip