Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Thu, 13 Feb 2020 07:33:30 +0530
From:   afzal mohammed <afzal.mohd.ma@gmail.com>
To:     Finn Thain <fthain@telegraphics.com.au>
Cc:     linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Greg Ungerer <gerg@linux-m68k.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 06/18] m68k: Replace setup_irq() by request_irq()
Message-ID: <20200213020330.GC2684@teres>
References: <cover.1581478323.git.afzal.mohd.ma@gmail.com>
 <1941c51a3237c4e9df6d9a5b87615cd1bba572dc.1581478324.git.afzal.mohd.ma@gmail.com>
 <alpine.LNX.2.22.394.2002130912140.8@nippy.intranet>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LNX.2.22.394.2002130912140.8@nippy.intranet>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 09:25:19AM +1100, Finn Thain wrote:

> > -	setup_irq(TMR_IRQ_NUM, &m68328_timer_irq);
> > +	if (request_irq(TMR_IRQ_NUM, hw_tick, IRQF_TIMER, "timer", NULL))
> > +		pr_err("request_irq() on %s failed\n", "timer");
> 
> "request_irq() on timer failed" is bad grammar and doesn't convey what 
> went wrong. It could be taken to mean that request_irq() was called 
> because a timer went off.
> 
> Have you considered,
> 
> 		pr_err("%s: request_irq() failed\n", "timer");

i was uncomfortable with the string contents, since that didn't seem
nonsense and to avoid pondering time over it, it was used.

Your suggestion is definitely better, will use that instead.

Regards
afzal