Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.35 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.35;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231206151134.26052-1-quic_pintu@quicinc.com>
In-Reply-To: <20231206151134.26052-1-quic_pintu@quicinc.com>
From:   Pintu Agarwal <pintu.ping@gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 8 Dec 2023 21:24:08 +0530
Message-ID: <CAOuPNLhVHHGa45rGvXrcYaDvxvWk7H7Ckip=jiM38ppKw_7uvQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] of: reserved_mem: fix error log for reserved mem init failure
To:     Pintu Kumar <quic_pintu@quicinc.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, robh+dt@kernel.org, frowand.list@gmail.com,
        devicetree@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 6 Dec 2023 at 20:45, Pintu Kumar <quic_pintu@quicinc.com> wrote:
>
> During fdt_init_reserved_mem() when __reserved_mem_init_node()
> fail we are using pr_info to print error.
>
> So, if we change the loglevel to 4 (or below), this error
> message will be missed.
>
> Thus, change the pr_info to pr_err for fail case.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pintu Kumar <quic_pintu@quicinc.com>
> ---
>  drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c b/drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c
> index 7ec94cfcbddb..473665e76b6f 100644
> --- a/drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c
> +++ b/drivers/of/of_reserved_mem.c
> @@ -334,7 +334,7 @@ void __init fdt_init_reserved_mem(void)
>                 if (err == 0) {
>                         err = __reserved_mem_init_node(rmem);
>                         if (err != 0 && err != -ENOENT) {
> -                               pr_info("node %s compatible matching fail\n",
> +                               pr_err("node %s compatible matching fail\n",
>                                         rmem->name);
>                                 if (nomap)
>                                         memblock_clear_nomap(rmem->base, rmem->size);
> --
> 2.17.1
>

Looks like the patch got pushed twice because of some network issue.
Please consider this one for review.

Thanks