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;
Sender: Guenter Roeck <groeck7@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8a48ba53-7182-10fa-72cd-fbcee0e4369a@roeck-us.net>
Date:   Mon, 9 May 2022 16:15:22 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.8.1
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Watchdog: sp5100_tco: Lower verbosity of disabled
 watchdog hardware
Content-Language: en-US
To:     "Limonciello, Mario" <Mario.Limonciello@amd.com>,
        Wim Van Sebroeck <wim@linux-watchdog.org>,
        "open list:WATCHDOG DEVICE DRIVERS" <linux-watchdog@vger.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Cc:     "ionut_n2001@yahoo.com" <ionut_n2001@yahoo.com>
References: <20220509163304.86-1-mario.limonciello@amd.com>
 <b394bfcf-9f0d-b27c-5bc0-3d628de98755@roeck-us.net>
 <BL1PR12MB51578AC7D4CCBFBCD1DF19E4E2C69@BL1PR12MB5157.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
From:   Guenter Roeck <linux@roeck-us.net>
In-Reply-To: <BL1PR12MB51578AC7D4CCBFBCD1DF19E4E2C69@BL1PR12MB5157.namprd12.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 5/9/22 16:10, Limonciello, Mario wrote:
> [Public]
> 
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Guenter Roeck <groeck7@gmail.com> On Behalf Of Guenter Roeck
>> Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 17:56
>> To: Limonciello, Mario <Mario.Limonciello@amd.com>; Wim Van Sebroeck
>> <wim@linux-watchdog.org>; open list:WATCHDOG DEVICE DRIVERS <linux-
>> watchdog@vger.kernel.org>; open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
>> Cc: ionut_n2001@yahoo.com
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Watchdog: sp5100_tco: Lower verbosity of disabled
>> watchdog hardware
>>
>> On 5/9/22 09:33, Mario Limonciello wrote:
>>> If watchdog hardware has been disabled, currently the kernel driver
>>> will show at err level during probe:
>>>
>>> "Watchdog hardware is disabled"
>>>
>>> This is unnecessarily verbose as there is already a -ENODEV returned.
>>> Lower the level to debug.
>>
>> Is it ? Without this message, a user may try to load the driver,
>> get an error message, and have no idea why the driver was not
>> enabled even though the hardware exists. If anything , -ENODEV
>> is less than perfect. Unfortunately there does not seem to be
>> a better error code, or at least I don't see one.
> 
> If it didn't have modaliases and users only manually loaded it; I would agree
> with you.  However it has MODULE_DEVICE_TABLE, so if that PCI device is around
> then the driver will load either way.  That would translate into an "error message"
> on every boot if you have this module compiled and didn't manually try to load it.
> 

Why don't you just blacklist the driver ?

Guenter