[PATCH v3 2/3] mfd: lubbock_io: add lubbock_io board

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:29:19AM +0000, Lee Jones wrote:

On Mon, 19 Jan 2015, Robert Jarzmik wrote:

quoted

quoted

quoted

+	if (ret) {
+		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "Couldn't request main irq : ret = %d\n",
+			ret);

I'm not keen on this type of formatting.  Besides the system will
print out the returned error on failure.

Well, it will print -EINVAL or -ENODEV. When I'll receive an request on the
driver with -ENODEV, how will I know it will come from this request_irq() or
another part of the code ... Well I can remove it if you want, but I think it's
an error.

I'm not asking you to remove the entire message, just the junk at the
end.

No.  Leave it.  If request_irq() returns -ENODEV or -ENXIO, you'll
just get the "Couldn't request main irq" message but without the
error code printed.

What I'd suggest (and always have done) is:

	dev_err(&pdev->dev, "couldn't request main irq%d: %d\n",
		irq, ret);

but I guess printing the IRQ number no longer makes sense with todays
dynamic mapping of logical IRQ numbers, as it is no longer meaningful.

-- 
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 10.5Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.