On 21-04-19 09:16, Ahmad Fatoum wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 16.04.21 11:49, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/base/driver.c b/drivers/base/driver.c
> > index f60533c59e..ea23884624 100644
> > --- a/drivers/base/driver.c
> > +++ b/drivers/base/driver.c
> > @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
> >
> > #include <common.h>
> > #include <command.h>
> > +#include <deep-probe.h>
> > #include <driver.h>
> > #include <malloc.h>
> > #include <console.h>
> > @@ -95,7 +96,15 @@ int device_probe(struct device_d *dev)
> > if (ret == -EPROBE_DEFER) {
> > list_del(&dev->active);
> > list_add(&dev->active, &deferred);
> > - dev_dbg(dev, "probe deferred\n");
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * -EPROBE_DEFER should never appear on a deep-probe machine so
> > + * inform the user immediately.
> > + */
> > + if (deep_probe_is_supported())
> > + dev_warn(dev, "probe deferred\n");
>
> Such devices wouldn't ever be retried with deep probe, right?
The subsystem needs to support deep probe and if it isn't adapted, right
now only a few ones are adapted, this could still be possible.
> If so, this should be a dev_err, not dev_warn, as it's not a recoverable
> issue.
If all subsystems support it you're right.
Regards,
Marco
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
