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;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] of: overlay: log the error cause on resolver failure
To:     Luca Ceresoli <luca@lucaceresoli.net>, devicetree@vger.kernel.org,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be>
Cc:     Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@konsulko.com>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
References: <20200225164540.4520-1-luca@lucaceresoli.net>
 <f9565679-5892-bcf0-f751-bfcac87670a8@gmail.com>
 <40fdf0f2-85a4-9f84-6994-a59b7b56cec4@lucaceresoli.net>
From:   Frank Rowand <frowand.list@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <efcb22be-7fb4-908d-d54f-6a22f1c62ec5@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Feb 2020 13:30:46 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <40fdf0f2-85a4-9f84-6994-a59b7b56cec4@lucaceresoli.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 2/27/20 2:11 AM, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
> Hi Frank,
> 
> On 26/02/20 04:53, Frank Rowand wrote:
>> On 2/25/20 10:45 AM, Luca Ceresoli wrote:
>>> For some of its error paths, of_resolve_phandles() only logs a very generic
>>> error which does not help much in finding the origin of the problem:
>>>
>>>   OF: resolver: overlay phandle fixup failed: -22
>>>
>>> Add error messages for all the error paths that don't have one. Now a
>>> specific message is always emitted, thus also remove the generic catch-all
>>> message emitted before returning.
>>>
>>> For example, in case a DT overlay has a fixup node that is not present in
>>> the base DT __symbols__, this error is now logged:
>>>
>>>   OF: resolver: node gpio9 not found in base DT, fixup failed
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Luca Ceresoli <luca@lucaceresoli.net>
>>> Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
>>> ---
>>>
>>> I don't know in detail the meaning of the adjust_local_phandle_references()
>>> and update_usages_of_a_phandle_reference() error paths, thus I have put
>>> pretty generic messages. Any suggestion on better wording would be welcome.
>>
>> If you have not read the code to understand what the meaning of
>> the errors are, you should not be suggesting changes to the error
>> messages.
>>
>> Only one of the issues detected as errors can possibly be something
>> other than an error either in the resolver.c code or the dtc
>> compiler -- a missing symbol in the live devicetree.  This may
>> be because of failing to compile the base devicetree without
>> symbols, depending on a symbol from another overlay where the
>> other overlay has not been applied, or depending on a symbol
>> from another overlay where the other overlay is applied but
>> the overlay was not compiled with symbols.  (Not meant to be
>> an exhaustive list, but it might be.)  Thus the missing
>> symbol problem might be fixable without a fix to kernel
>> code.  The error message philosophy for overlay related
>> errors is to minimize error messages that help diagnose
>> the precise cause of a kernel code bug, with the intent
>> of keeping the code more compact and readable.  When a
>> bug occurs, debugging messages can be added for the
>> debug session.
> 
> Got it, sorry about that.
> 
>> Following this philosophy, only the message in the second
>> patch chunk is ok.
> 
> Then I think you can apply the v1 patch which only contains the message
> about the problem I experienced, and which was caused by an incorrect DTO:
> 
> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1243987/
> 
> Just ignore the note saying the patch is not for mainline, it's wrong.
> 

Mostly yes, v1 contains the one place a message should be added.

Let me bike shed a little bit though.

I suggested a different wording for the message in v2, but I
do not think my attempt at wording was precise enough.  I
would instead suggest:

  "node label '%s' not found in live devicetree symbols table\n"

Some subtle differences.
  - It is a node label, not a node name.
  - If multiple overlays are applied, then the intention may have
    been to supply the node label via a previously applied overlay
    instead of from the base devicetree.  So specifying the live
    devicetree is more accurate.

Please submit v3 for mainline.

Thanks,

Frank