Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-183649-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Mon, 20 May 2024 16:46:34 +0530
From: Siddharth Vadapalli <s-vadapalli@ti.com>
To: Onkarnath <onkarnath.1@samsung.com>
CC: Siddharth Vadapalli <s-vadapalli@ti.com>,
        "bhelgaas@google.com"
	<bhelgaas@google.com>,
        "vigneshr@ti.com" <vigneshr@ti.com>,
        "lpieralisi@kernel.org" <lpieralisi@kernel.org>,
        "kw@linux.com"
	<kw@linux.com>, "robh@kernel.org" <robh@kernel.org>,
        "yue.wang@Amlogic.com"
	<yue.wang@Amlogic.com>,
        "neil.armstrong@linaro.org"
	<neil.armstrong@linaro.org>,
        "khilman@baylibre.com" <khilman@baylibre.com>,
        "jbrunet@baylibre.com" <jbrunet@baylibre.com>,
        "martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com" <martin.blumenstingl@googlemail.com>,
        "thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com" <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>,
        "shawn.guo@linaro.org" <shawn.guo@linaro.org>,
        "lchuanhua@maxlinear.com"
	<lchuanhua@maxlinear.com>,
        "srikanth.thokala@intel.com"
	<srikanth.thokala@intel.com>,
        "songxiaowei@hisilicon.com"
	<songxiaowei@hisilicon.com>,
        "wangbinghui@hisilicon.com"
	<wangbinghui@hisilicon.com>,
        "manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org"
	<manivannan.sadhasivam@linaro.org>,
        "thierry.reding@gmail.com"
	<thierry.reding@gmail.com>,
        "jonathanh@nvidia.com" <jonathanh@nvidia.com>,
        "hayashi.kunihiko@socionext.com" <hayashi.kunihiko@socionext.com>,
        "mhiramat@kernel.org" <mhiramat@kernel.org>,
        "pali@kernel.org"
	<pali@kernel.org>,
        "toan@os.amperecomputing.com"
	<toan@os.amperecomputing.com>,
        "daire.mcnamara@microchip.com"
	<daire.mcnamara@microchip.com>,
        "conor.dooley@microchip.com"
	<conor.dooley@microchip.com>,
        "marek.vasut+renesas@gmail.com"
	<marek.vasut+renesas@gmail.com>,
        "shawn.lin@rock-chips.com"
	<shawn.lin@rock-chips.com>,
        "heiko@sntech.de" <heiko@sntech.de>,
        "nirmal.patel@linux.intel.com" <nirmal.patel@linux.intel.com>,
        "jonathan.derrick@linux.dev" <jonathan.derrick@linux.dev>,
        "kishon@kernel.org" <kishon@kernel.org>,
        "jdmason@kudzu.us"
	<jdmason@kudzu.us>,
        "dave.jiang@intel.com" <dave.jiang@intel.com>,
        "rafael@kernel.org" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        "lenb@kernel.org" <lenb@kernel.org>,
        "mahesh@linux.ibm.com" <mahesh@linux.ibm.com>,
        "oohall@gmail.com"
	<oohall@gmail.com>,
        "linux-pci@vger.kernel.org" <linux-pci@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-omap@vger.kernel.org" <linux-omap@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org"
	<linux-amlogic@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org"
	<linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org"
	<linux-tegra@vger.kernel.org>,
        Rohit Thapliyal <r.thapliyal@samsung.com>,
        Maninder Singh <maninder1.s@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] PCI : Refactoring error log prints for better
 readability
Message-ID: <e0e28988-9699-4e6c-abb0-30fa2727c2c3@ti.com>
References: <4ec3b167-9324-41d3-a086-74ca001b9042@ti.com>
 <20240517105923.2406246-1-onkarnath.1@samsung.com>
 <CGME20240517105941epcas5p3e8dbb97f19c9553bf9942ad146124806@epcms5p5>
 <20240520104358epcms5p50e00970ef70f66e87ceaaa893fc0ba67@epcms5p5>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240520104358epcms5p50e00970ef70f66e87ceaaa893fc0ba67@epcms5p5>

On Mon, May 20, 2024 at 04:13:58PM +0530, Onkarnath wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> 

[...]

> 
> >>Similar question as above regarding converting "failed, ret" to
> 
> >>"failed:". Is this a new convention that is expected to be followed,
> 
> >where all errors are supposed to have "failed: %pe", rather than custom
> 
> >statements? Please let me know if this has already been discussed
> 
> >elsewhere.
> 
> 
> Bjorn suggested to make all errors consistent.
> 
> and I thought printing error like below:
> 
> 
> "gpio request failed: -ENOMEM".
> 
> 
> Seems more suitable than
> 
> 
> "gpio request failed, ret (-ENOMEM)".
> 
> 
> If it needs to be changed in other format, please let me know, i will make all
> errors in that format.
> 
> and will share v2.

Thank you for clarifying. It appeared to me that the suggestion was
limited to the %d to %pe conversion. The existing implementation looks
good in that case.

Regards,
Siddharth.