Hi Marc,
On Mon, May 06, 2024 at 11:45:20AM -0400, marc.ferland@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> From: Marc Ferland <marc.ferland@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> xiic_start_xfer can fail for different reasons:
>
> - EBUSY: bus is busy or i2c messages still in tx_msg or rx_msg
> - ETIMEDOUT: timed-out trying to clear the RX fifo
Wolfram has recently removed all the error printouts caused by
etimedout.
> - EINVAL: wrong clock settings
>
> Printing the error code helps identifying the root cause.
>
> Signed-off-by: Marc Ferland <marc.ferland@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> index 71391b590ada..73729f0180a1 100644
> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-xiic.c
> @@ -1165,7 +1165,7 @@ static int xiic_xfer(struct i2c_adapter *adap, struct i2c_msg *msgs, int num)
>
> err = xiic_start_xfer(i2c, msgs, num);
> if (err < 0) {
> - dev_err(adap->dev.parent, "Error xiic_start_xfer\n");
> + dev_err(adap->dev.parent, "Error xiic_start_xfer: %d\n", err);
I don't see the end user being interested in having the error
number printed in the dmesg. In fact, I doubt the end user is
interested in this message at all.
We could print the debug messages (or warnings) where the actual
failure occurs. For example, in the setclk case, a warning is
already being printed, and I don't see why we should also print
an error here.
Does that make sense?
Andi
> goto out;
> }
>
> --
> 2.34.1
>
