Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 14 Apr 2022 12:15:37 +0200
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Paul Menzel <pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de>
Cc:     Medad Young <medadyoung@gmail.com>, rric@kernel.org,
        James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>, tony.luck@intel.com,
        Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Benjamin Fair <benjaminfair@google.com>,
        Nancy Yuen <yuenn@google.com>,
        Patrick Venture <venture@google.com>, KWLIU@nuvoton.com,
        YSCHU@nuvoton.com, JJLIU0@nuvoton.com, KFTING <KFTING@nuvoton.com>,
        Avi Fishman <avifishman70@gmail.com>,
        Tomer Maimon <tmaimon77@gmail.com>,
        Tali Perry <tali.perry1@gmail.com>, ctcchien@nuvoton.com,
        devicetree <devicetree@vger.kernel.org>,
        OpenBMC Maillist <openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-edac <linux-edac@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] EDAC: nuvoton: Add NPCM memory controller driver
Message-ID: <Ylf0Sc7fqv25Ay05@zn.tnic>
References: <20220322030152.19018-1-ctcchien@nuvoton.com>
 <20220322030152.19018-4-ctcchien@nuvoton.com>
 <a06441fc-85cf-9386-e362-4a90e855aa19@molgen.mpg.de>
 <CAHpyw9fQVbS1Cpv0ULQc2=vK8LsG6n7tgP+J9AboUupDAPT27Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <YlfeXVSkUC2B4xH2@zn.tnic>
 <14d07709-07ef-21a8-ad74-0f56447cf6dd@molgen.mpg.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <14d07709-07ef-21a8-ad74-0f56447cf6dd@molgen.mpg.de>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 14, 2022 at 10:56:43AM +0200, Paul Menzel wrote:
> No idea, why you had to ask this question, while you statement before
> already made the point.

You've told Medad one thing. I told him the complete opposite. Medad as
new submitter gets confused. And I don't want patch submitters to get
confused by review.

So, if you're unsure about a review feedback, don't give it pls.

> Sorry I do not get your point. Would you elaborate on the debug message so
> it’s more useful?

Just think of the big picture: is my error message useful enough for
debugging or would I have to go and add more info to it so that I can
debug an issue?

Example:

There is

	edac_dbg(3, "InterruptStatus : 0x%x\n", intr_status);

now.

Now, how about this?

        edac_dbg(3, "dev: %s, id: %s: IRQ: %d, interrupt status: 0x%x\n",
                 mci->dev_name, mci->ctl_name, irq, intr_status);

Which one, do you think, is more helpful to a person trying to debug any
potential issue with the interrupt handler and the ECCs it is supposed
to issue?

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette