On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 04:13:58PM +0530, Onkarnath wrote: > Hi, > > [...] > > >>Similar question as above regarding converting "failed, ret" to > > >>"failed:". Is this a new convention that is expected to be followed, > > >where all errors are supposed to have "failed: %pe", rather than custom > > >statements? Please let me know if this has already been discussed > > >elsewhere. > > > Bjorn suggested to make all errors consistent. > > and I thought printing error like below: > > > "gpio request failed: -ENOMEM". > > > Seems more suitable than > > > "gpio request failed, ret (-ENOMEM)". > > > If it needs to be changed in other format, please let me know, i will make all > errors in that format. > > and will share v2. Thank you for clarifying. It appeared to me that the suggestion was limited to the %d to %pe conversion. The existing implementation looks good in that case. Regards, Siddharth.
