On 8/14/23 14:18, Brian Masney wrote:
On Mon, Aug 14, 2023 at 12:31:31PM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote:
On 8/14/23 11:43, Brian Masney wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
index 129446775796..409d176542e1 100644
--- a/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
+++ b/drivers/ufs/core/ufshcd.c
@@ -9235,8 +9235,9 @@ static int ufshcd_variant_hba_init(struct ufs_hba *hba)
err = ufshcd_vops_init(hba);
if (err)
- dev_err(hba->dev, "%s: variant %s init failed err %d\n",
- __func__, ufshcd_get_var_name(hba), err);
+ dev_err_probe(hba->dev, err,
+ "%s: variant %s init failed err %d\n",
+ __func__, ufshcd_get_var_name(hba), err);
out:
return err;
}
This opportunity could have been used to improve the grammar of the reported
error message. Anyway:
That's what I originally did in v1, however I was asked to split out the
cleanup into a different patch. Split out, I think the cleanup on it's
own isn't worth it's own patch, so that's why I dropped it.
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230808142650.1713432-2-bmasney@xxxxxxxxxx/
Changing an error message and introducing dev_err_probe() at the same time is
fine. I don't think that is what the reviewer complained about. The complaint
probably was about renaming 'err' into 'ret' and about changing 'goto out'
into 'return 0'?
Thanks,
Bart.
