On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 3:55 PM Andrzej Hajda <a.ha...@samsung.com> wrote: > On 16.10.2018 13:29, Andrzej Hajda wrote: > > On 16.10.2018 13:01, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 10:22 AM Andrzej Hajda <a.ha...@samsung.com> wrote: > >>> During probe every time driver gets resource it should usually check for > >>> error > >>> printk some message if it is not -EPROBE_DEFER and return the error. This > >>> pattern is simple but requires adding few lines after any resource > >>> acquisition > >>> code, as a result it is often omited or implemented only partially. > >>> probe_err helps to replace such code seqences with simple call, so code: > >>> if (err != -EPROBE_DEFER) > >>> dev_err(dev, ...); > >>> return err; > >>> becomes: > >>> return probe_err(dev, err, ...);
> >>> + va_start(args, fmt); > >>> + > >>> + vaf.fmt = fmt; > >>> + vaf.va = &args; > >>> + > >>> + __dev_printk(KERN_ERR, dev, &vaf); > >> It would be nice to print an error code as well, wouldn't it? > > Hmm, on probe fail error is printed anyway (with exception of > > EPROBE_DEFER, ENODEV and ENXIO): > > "probe of %s failed with error %d\n" > > On the other side currently some drivers prints the error code anyway > > via dev_err or similar, so I guess during conversion to probe_err it > > should be removed then. > > > > If we add error code to probe_err is it OK to report it this way? > > dev_err(dev, "%V, %d\n", &vaf, err); > > Ups, I forgot that message passed to probe_err will contain already > newline character. You may consider not to pass it. > So the err must be before message passed to probe_err, for example: > dev_err(dev, "err=%d: %V\n", err, &vaf); > Is it OK? For me would work either (no \n in the message, or err preceding the message). -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
