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:   Tue, 6 Sep 2022 09:52:18 +0100
From:   Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
To:     Robert Richter <rrichter@amd.com>
CC:     Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@intel.com>,
        Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@intel.com>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>,
        Ben Widawsky <bwidawsk@kernel.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        <linux-cxl@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
        "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/15] cxl: Unify debug messages when calling
 devm_cxl_add_port()
Message-ID: <20220906095218.0000046c@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <Yxb3HQVr5BJzxedj@rric.localdomain>
References: <20220831081603.3415-1-rrichter@amd.com>
        <20220831081603.3415-4-rrichter@amd.com>
        <20220831105945.00004668@huawei.com>
        <Yxb3HQVr5BJzxedj@rric.localdomain>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 6 Sep 2022 09:30:37 +0200
Robert Richter <rrichter@amd.com> wrote:

> On 31.08.22 10:59:45, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 10:15:51 +0200
> > Robert Richter <rrichter@amd.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > CXL ports are added in a couple of code paths using
> > > devm_cxl_add_port(). Debug messages are individually generated, but
> > > are incomplete and inconsistent. Change this by moving its generation
> > > to devm_cxl_add_port(). This unifies the messages and reduces code
> > > duplication. Also, generate messages on failure.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Robert Richter <rrichter@amd.com>  
> > 
> > This is one for Dan etc as it is mostly a question of how verbose we want
> > the debug prints to be plus preference for caller or callee being
> > responsible for outputting this sort of message.
> > 
> > Patch looks good to me if we want to make this sort of change.  
> 
> Should I take this as a Reviewed-by?

Hmm. I guess I could go that far as its a policy decision rather than correctness

Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -Robert