On 10/05/2021 08:20:52-0400, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On 09/05/2021 17:06, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > > On 08/05/2021 18:06:03-0600, Edmundo Carmona Antoranz wrote: > >> On Sat, May 8, 2021 at 10:59 AM Christophe JAILLET > >> <christophe.jaillet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Following the recent conversations, I think it might make sense to do > >>>> dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Failed to register RTC device: %pe\n", info->rtc_dev); > >>>> > >>>> Is that right? > >>>> > >>> > >>> Yes, it is right, but it should be done in another patch. > >>> > >>> Would you like to give it a try? > >>> > >> Sure, I'll have the patch ready to send it when I see yours on next. > > > > Does it make sense to print anything at all? Who would use the output? > > Is anyone actually going to read it? > > If the RTC core does not print the message, it should be > dev_err_probe(). However the first is recently preferred - RTC core > should do it for all drivers. I find such error messages useful - helps > easily spotting regressions via dmesg -l err. > The only error path that will not print a message by default (it is dev_dbg) is when rtc-ops is NULL which I don't expect would regress anyway. A better way to remove the dead code would be to switch to devm_rtc_allocate_device/devm_rtc_register_device. And even better would be to take that opportunity to set range_min and range_max ;) -- Alexandre Belloni, co-owner and COO, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
