On 10/07/2023 11:59, Yangtao Li wrote: > There are more than 700 calls to devm_request_threaded_irq method and > more than 1000 calls to devm_request_irq method. Most drivers only > request one interrupt resource, and these error messages are basically > the same. If error messages are printed everywhere, more than 2000 lines > of code can be saved by removing the msg in the driver. > > And tglx point out that: > > If we actually look at the call sites of > devm_request_threaded_irq() then the vast majority of them print more or > less lousy error messages. A quick grep/sed/awk/sort/uniq revealed > > 519 messages total (there are probably more) > > 352 unique messages > > 323 unique messages after lower casing > > Those 323 are mostly just variants of the same patterns with > slight modifications in formatting and information provided. > > 186 of these messages do not deliver any useful information, > e.g. "no irq", " > > The most useful one of all is: "could request wakeup irq: %d" > > So there is certainly an argument to be made that this particular > function should print a well formatted and informative error message. > > It's not a general allocator like kmalloc(). It's specialized and in the > vast majority of cases failing to request the interrupt causes the > device probe to fail. So having proper and consistent information why > the device cannot be used _is_ useful. > > So convert to use devm_request*_irq_probe() API, which ensure that all > error handling branches print error information. > > In this way, when this function fails, the upper-layer functions can > directly return an error code without missing debugging information. > Otherwise, the error message will be printed redundantly or missing. > > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: AngeloGioacchino Del Regno <angelogioacchino.delregno@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Yangtao Li <frank.li@xxxxxxxx> > --- Reviewed-by: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@xxxxxxxxxx> Best regards, Krzysztof
