On 12/05/2021 12:13, Alexandre Belloni wrote: > 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. Then the message in the driver is useless and could be removed. > 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 ;) > The driver already uses devm_rtc_device_register() so I think I don't follow that part. Best regards, Krzysztof
