Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-147443-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 21:02:54 +0200
From: Andi Shyti <andi.shyti@kernel.org>
To: Wolfram Sang <wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>, 
	Heiko =?utf-8?Q?St=C3=BCbner?= <heiko@sntech.de>, Dragan Simic <dsimic@manjaro.org>, linux-i2c@vger.kernel.org, 
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-rockchip@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/18] i2c: rk3x: remove printout on handled timeouts
Message-ID: <kxlb62ejtnaacgvlkdnyxtap23oesagq7p52z7kqhhydqdjhbt@gpvwnr4rb67a>
References: <20240410112418.6400-20-wsa+renesas@sang-engineering.com>
 <hgdhrf2jiovfxcppdtsq32sfbk4xuq7ewiwq4awwztj4mp3yez@kj6ixihkcxhe>
 <af8ac48f10a1636ab2486aef91e01c3f@manjaro.org>
 <8358604.T7Z3S40VBb@diego>
 <dnh4yiajjqcxcq7xjvj35quda7yrf7tubp2l2ktsaf4zgzai4n@xdefxkk76yyg>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <dnh4yiajjqcxcq7xjvj35quda7yrf7tubp2l2ktsaf4zgzai4n@xdefxkk76yyg>

Hi,

On Sat, Apr 13, 2024 at 04:35:06PM +0200, Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > Also we're talking about two lines of code, I wouldn't call that bloat ;-)
> 
> With this patch, yes. But once you allow debug code, it is hard to draw
> a line which debug is still okay and which is too fine-grained. And then
> you end up with a lot. Over the years, I developed the tendency to try
> to have less but meaningful error printouts. But I don't enforce it
> strictly because it is too much bike-shedding discussion.
> 
> In case of this error printout here, it is just wrong. But, see, it also
> came from this tendency I don't like to have printouts for every error.

I agree with Wolfram here. Debug messages are OK if they are
providing real useful information to a final product.

Besides, as I explained earlier, the patter:

	dev_dbg("timed out")
	return -ETIMEDOUT;

(print a debug but return error) doesn't make much sense.

But, I this is all personal preference. So that I can also leave
it to the specific maintainer.

From my side all patches in this series are r-b'ed, except for
patch 6 where there are 3 dev_dbg in a row stating the same
thing.

Thanks Dragan and Heiko for your feedback.

Andi