'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 <[email protected]>
---
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);
- ret = PTR_ERR(core->tsp);
goto err;
}
--
2.30.2
On 5/6/21 3:46 PM, 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 <[email protected]>
Thanks for catching the issue.
Acked-by: Suman Anna <[email protected]>
regards
Suman
> ---
> 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);
> - ret = PTR_ERR(core->tsp);
> goto err;
> }
>
>
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 <[email protected]>
> ---
> 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.
dev_err(dev, "failed to construct ti-sci proc control, ret = %pe\n",
core->tsp);
regards,
dan carpenter
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 <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> 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?
Do you know if there is preferred way?
Using it after a IS_ERR is straightforward, but should we also do things
like (kmalloc usually don't need error message, just given as an example):
x = kmalloc(...);
if (!x)
dev_err(dev, "Memory allocation failure (%pe)\n",
ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM));
When changing a message and make use of %pe, should all the messages in
the neighborhood be changed as well to keep some kind of consistancy?
CJ
>
> dev_err(dev, "failed to construct ti-sci proc control, ret = %pe\n",
> core->tsp);
> regards,
> dan carpenter
>
>
>
On Fri, May 07, 2021 at 07:58:39AM +0200, Christophe JAILLET wrote:
> Le 07/05/2021 ? 07:26, Dan Carpenter a ?crit?:
> > 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 <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > 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