Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: k3-r5: Fix an error message

From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
Cc: ohad@wizery.com, bjorn.andersson@linaro.org,
	mathieu.poirier@linaro.org, s-anna@ti.com,
	linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] remoteproc: k3-r5: Fix an error message
Date: Fri, 7 May 2021 09:59:26 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210507065926.GD1922@kadam> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5cdff9cf-945a-fe47-b117-3c9d9f11e987@wanadoo.fr>

On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 07:58:39AM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> Le 07/05/2021 à 07:26, Dan Carpenter a écrit :
> > On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 10:46:01PM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> > > 'ret' is known to be 0 here.
> > > Reorder the code so that the expected error code is printed.
> > > 
> > > Fixes: 6dedbd1d5443 ("remoteproc: k3-r5: Add a remoteproc driver for R5F subsystem")
> > > Signed-off-by: Christophe JAILLET <christophe.jaillet@wanadoo.fr>
> > > ---
> > >   drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c | 2 +-
> > >   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
> > > index 5cf8d030a1f0..4104e4846dbf 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/remoteproc/ti_k3_r5_remoteproc.c
> > > @@ -1272,9 +1272,9 @@ static int k3_r5_core_of_init(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > >   	core->tsp = k3_r5_core_of_get_tsp(dev, core->ti_sci);
> > >   	if (IS_ERR(core->tsp)) {
> > > +		ret = PTR_ERR(core->tsp);
> > >   		dev_err(dev, "failed to construct ti-sci proc control, ret = %d\n",
> > >   			ret);
> > 
> > I recently learned about the %pe format specifier, which prints "-ENOMEM"
> > instead of -12.
> 
> Hi Dan,
> 
> I see that we are reading the same ML  :)
> 
> 
> Well, I'm a bit puzzled by it.
> On one hand, it is more user-friendly. On the other hand it is not widely
> used up to now.
> 
> So is it better to keep the legacy way of reporting error code?

It might make back porting things more complicated?  I'm surprised this
hasn't been backported further back to 5.4.

> 
> Do you know if there is preferred way?

It's new.  Soon it will be the prefered way.  You're right, of course,
that needs to introduce a %e which takes an int.  I have left this as an
exercise for the reader.  ;)  Eventually someone will work up the energy
required and do this work.

regards,
dan carpenter