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;
Message-ID: <c77b6667-25ff-70c4-2312-9262d88b1859@molgen.mpg.de>
Date:   Thu, 14 Apr 2022 12:44:13 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 3/3] EDAC: nuvoton: Add NPCM memory controller driver
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.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@vger.kernel.org, openbmc@lists.ozlabs.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-edac@vger.kernel.org
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>
 <Ylf0Sc7fqv25Ay05@zn.tnic>
From:   Paul Menzel <pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de>
In-Reply-To: <Ylf0Sc7fqv25Ay05@zn.tnic>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

Dear Borislav,


Am 14.04.22 um 12:15 schrieb Borislav Petkov:
> 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.

When? I must have missed your comment then?

> 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.

Also during review errors can happen, can’t they? I apologized, and then 
you for catching it.

>> 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?

I am all for more elaborate log messages, but have the feeling, you 
think I am not? Where does the misunderstanding come from?


Kind regards,

Paul