Re: [PATCH v18 3/3] Input: new da7280 haptic driver - Uwe Kleine-König

From: "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>
To: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>
Cc: Roy Im <roy.im.opensource@diasemi.com>,
	Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@baylibre.com>,
	Brian Masney <masneyb@onstation.org>,
	Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Lee Jones <lee.jones@linaro.org>, Luca Weiss <luca@z3ntu.xyz>,
	Maximilian Luz <luzmaximilian@gmail.com>,
	Pascal PAILLET-LME <p.paillet@st.com>,
	Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@linux.intel.com>,
	Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Support Opensource <support.opensource@diasemi.com>,
	linux-input@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-pwm@vger.kernel.org, Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
	Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
	Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v18 3/3] Input: new da7280 haptic driver
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2020 09:00:21 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200730070021.l2yuomsc3uwua5bx@pengutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200730063404.GH1665100@dtor-ws>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1579 bytes --]

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/ |

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]