Hello,

On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 11:34:04PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 08:16:31AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> > I suggested that some time ago with limited success, see
> > https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20200129115516.zsvxu56e6h7gheiw@pathway.suse.cz/
> > .
> > 
> > > In the meantime I would prefer using %d when we have integer
> > > error. We should not see these error messages anyway ;)
> > 
> > I don't agree. Error messages are supposed to be helpful and I prefer
> > some casting between error pointer and error int over emitting bare
> > numbers to the kernel log. (And additionally the uglyness might help to
> > convince the vsprintf guys that %de might be a good idea after all :-)
> 
> Sorry, but I do not think that I want to introduce this pointless
> casting just to sway printk folks. Either we have proper way of
> formatting error codes, or we do not and we stick with what was working
> since forever.

You got me wrong. Getting an argument to rediscuss %de is just a minor
side reason for me. Getting an expressive error message is the relevant
reason.

There is also an inconsitence in what you suggest that I don't like. If
in a probe function devm_clk_get fails it should say "-ENODEV" but if
it's clk_enable that fails it should say "-5"?

Also "we stick with what was working since forever" is a poor argument.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | https://www.pengutronix.de/ |