Re: [PATCH v3 08/16] watchdog: imx_sc_wdt: drop warning after calling watchdog_init_timeout

From: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
To: "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>,
	"Wolfram Sang" <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
Cc: linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	Fabio Estevam <festevam@gmail.com>,
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@pengutronix.de>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-renesas-soc@vger.kernel.org,
	NXP Linux Team <linux-imx@nxp.com>,
	Pengutronix Kernel Team <kernel@pengutronix.de>,
	Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@linux-watchdog.org>,
	Shawn Guo <shawnguo@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 08/16] watchdog: imx_sc_wdt: drop warning after calling watchdog_init_timeout
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 05:37:12 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <616a9d4e-7050-a6c2-727d-f62e08d3d98c@roeck-us.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190429101558.6vyiospb6oqsstt7@pengutronix.de>

On 4/29/19 3:15 AM, Uwe Kleine-König wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2019 at 08:15:53PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
>> The core will print out details now.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
>> Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
>> ---
>>   drivers/watchdog/imx_sc_wdt.c | 5 +----
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/watchdog/imx_sc_wdt.c b/drivers/watchdog/imx_sc_wdt.c
>> index 86c2722f2a09..6dc24ceb1b2c 100644
>> --- a/drivers/watchdog/imx_sc_wdt.c
>> +++ b/drivers/watchdog/imx_sc_wdt.c
> 
> This driver isn't in next, and I don't know where to look for it.
> 

Branch watchdog-next of
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/groeck/linux-staging.git

>> @@ -117,10 +117,7 @@ static int imx_sc_wdt_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
>>   	imx_sc_wdd->parent = &pdev->dev;
>>   	imx_sc_wdd->timeout = DEFAULT_TIMEOUT;
>>   
>> -	ret = watchdog_init_timeout(imx_sc_wdd, 0, &pdev->dev);
>> -	if (ret)
>> -		dev_warn(&pdev->dev, "Failed to set timeout value, using default\n");
>> -
>> +	watchdog_init_timeout(imx_sc_wdd, 0, &pdev->dev);
> 
> One side effect is however that ret isn't set any more. So I wonder if a
> failure in watchdog_init_timeout() really makes the core print the
> details as expected.
> 

Sorry, I don't understand. The warning is printed in watchdog_init_timeout().
What does that have to do with setting ret here or not ?

Thanks,
Guenter