>> v4: Further feedback was integrated into this message.
>
> This is not a good change-log. What actually changed?
Which kind of information would you find more useful in this case?
>> @@ -222,19 +222,20 @@ static struct device *add_child(struct i2c_client *client, const char *name,
>> status = platform_device_add_resources(pdev, &r, 1);
>> if (status < 0) {
>> dev_dbg(&pdev->dev, "can't add irq\n");
>> - goto err;
>> + goto put_device;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> status = platform_device_add(pdev);
>> + if (status)
>> + goto put_device;
>>
>> -err:
>> - if (status < 0) {
>> - platform_device_put(pdev);
>> - dev_err(&client->dev, "can't add %s dev\n", name);
>> - return ERR_PTR(status);
>> - }
>> return &pdev->dev;
>> +
>> +put_device:
>> + platform_device_put(pdev);
>> + dev_err(&client->dev, "failed to add device %s\n", name);
>
> ... and remove this line.
Do you really want that this error message should be deleted?
How does this response fit to your request to introduce such a message
for the function "add_numbered_child" (on 2016-06-08)?
https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg1162299.html
https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/6/8/467
Regards,
Markus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
