Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Sat, 11 Jul 2020 15:47:33 +0800
From:   Dejin Zheng <zhengdejin5@gmail.com>
To:     Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>
Cc:     Rob Herring <robh@kernel.org>,
        "Chocron, Jonathan" <jonnyc@amazon.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] PCI: controller: Remove duplicate error message
Message-ID: <20200711074733.GD3112@nuc8i5>
References: <20200526150954.4729-1-zhengdejin5@gmail.com>
 <1d7703d5c29dc9371ace3645377d0ddd9c89be30.camel@amazon.com>
 <20200527132005.GA7143@nuc8i5>
 <1b54c08f759c101a8db162f4f62c6b6a8a455d3f.camel@amazon.com>
 <CAL_JsqJWKfShzb6r=pXFv03T4L+nmNrCHvt+NkEy5EFuuD1HAA@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200706155847.GA32050@e121166-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200706155847.GA32050@e121166-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 04:58:47PM +0100, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 02, 2020 at 09:01:13AM -0600, Rob Herring wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > The other 2 error cases as well don't print the resource name as far as
> > > I recall (they will at least print the resource start/end).
> > 
> > Start/end are what are important for why either of these functions
> > failed.
> > 
> > But sure, we could add 'name' here. That's a separate patch IMO.

Hi Lorenzo, Bob and Jonathan:                                                                                                     

Thank you very much for helping me review this patch, I sent a new patch
for print the resource name when the request memory region or remapping
of configuration space fails. and it is here:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11657801/

BR,
Dejin

> 
> I agree. In sum, I think it is OK to proceed with this patch, provided
> we send follow-ups as discussed here, are we in agreement ?
> 
> Lorenzo