On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 3:21 AM, Lothar Waßmann <LW@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, 9 Sep 2016 14:37:12 -0500 Leo Li wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 11:51 AM, Stefan Agner <stefan@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On 2016-09-08 16:57, Leo Li wrote: > [...] >> >> people fix problem that they don't really care by deliberately enlarge >> >> the problem. That's why we don't panic() on any error we found. For >> >> those who do care about the bus recovery, they can get the information >> >> from the console. >> > >> > IMHO, it is just stupid to ignore errors and then let the developer >> > later on trace back what the initial issue was. Error out early is a >> > common sense software design principle... >> > >> > I am not asking for a panic(), I am just suggesting to only ignore >> > pinctrl if it returns -ENODEV, the case you care are about. >> >> It was just an analogy for enlarging the problem for getting >> attention. But you probably thought that it was not enlarging the >> problem as you think pinctrl is required by the driver instead of an >> optional thing. >> > The I2C bus recovery is a feature which is not used during normal > operation and you won't find that it's not working unless something > unusual happens (probably only in a productive environment). It may even > be hard to trigger a condition to test the feature. > Thus IMO it is vital that the driver complains loudly if something is > missing to make this feature work if requested. I agree. A message is already added in this patch to mention that bus recovery is not supported due to pinctrl when there is a problem. Regards, Leo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
