| Message ID | 20190218172236.7781-6-lucasseikioshiro@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | iio:potentiostat:lmp91000: Adjust codestyle, and minor cleanup changes | expand |
On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 14:22 -0300, Lucas Oshiro wrote: > Add missing '\n' at the end of dev_err message on line 215. [] > diff --git a/drivers/iio/potentiostat/lmp91000.c b/drivers/iio/potentiostat/lmp91000.c [] > @@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ static int lmp91000_read_config(struct lmp91000_data *data) > ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "ti,tia-gain-ohm", &val); > if (ret) { > if (!of_property_read_bool(np, "ti,external-tia-resistor")) { > - dev_err(dev, "no ti,tia-gain-ohm defined"); > + dev_err(dev, "no ti,tia-gain-ohm defined\n"); Perhaps a copy/paste error as the test is for external-tia-resistor and not tia-gain-ohm
On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 13:01:23 -0800 Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 14:22 -0300, Lucas Oshiro wrote: > > Add missing '\n' at the end of dev_err message on line 215. > [] > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/potentiostat/lmp91000.c b/drivers/iio/potentiostat/lmp91000.c > [] > > @@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ static int lmp91000_read_config(struct lmp91000_data *data) > > ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "ti,tia-gain-ohm", &val); > > if (ret) { > > if (!of_property_read_bool(np, "ti,external-tia-resistor")) { > > - dev_err(dev, "no ti,tia-gain-ohm defined"); > > + dev_err(dev, "no ti,tia-gain-ohm defined\n"); > > Perhaps a copy/paste error as the test is for > external-tia-resistor and not tia-gain-ohm > It is an odd construct, but I think this is correct. What it is actually saying is that, given that we don't have an external resistor, we care that the tia-gain-ohm isn't set (otherwise it wouldn't matter). From the docs - ti,external-tia-resistor: if the property ti,tia-gain-ohm is not defined this needs to be set to signal that an external resistor value is being used. So, it might be ideal to say that tia-gain-ohm is not defined and we do not have an external resistor specified. So not wrong, but could be more informative! So perhaps a follow up patch to tidy that up would be good. Jonathan >
On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 09:49 +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 13:01:23 -0800 Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 14:22 -0300, Lucas Oshiro wrote: > > > Add missing '\n' at the end of dev_err message on line 215. > > [] > > > diff --git a/drivers/iio/potentiostat/lmp91000.c b/drivers/iio/potentiostat/lmp91000.c > > [] > > > @@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ static int lmp91000_read_config(struct lmp91000_data *data) > > > ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "ti,tia-gain-ohm", &val); > > > if (ret) { > > > if (!of_property_read_bool(np, "ti,external-tia-resistor")) { > > > - dev_err(dev, "no ti,tia-gain-ohm defined"); > > > + dev_err(dev, "no ti,tia-gain-ohm defined\n"); > > > > Perhaps a copy/paste error as the test is for > > external-tia-resistor and not tia-gain-ohm > > > It is an odd construct, but I think this is correct. What it is actually > saying is that, given that we don't have an external resistor, we care > that the tia-gain-ohm isn't set (otherwise it wouldn't matter). > > From the docs > - ti,external-tia-resistor: if the property ti,tia-gain-ohm is not defined this > needs to be set to signal that an external resistor value is being used. > > So, it might be ideal to say that tia-gain-ohm is not defined and we do > not have an external resistor specified. > > So not wrong, but could be more informative! So perhaps a follow up patch > to tidy that up would be good. Then thanks in advance for doing that. cheers, Joe
Thanks for the review! On 20/02/2019 19:22, Joe Perches wrote: > On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 09:49 +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: >> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 13:01:23 -0800 Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote: >>> On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 14:22 -0300, Lucas Oshiro wrote: >>>> Add missing '\n' at the end of dev_err message on line 215. >>> [] >>>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/potentiostat/lmp91000.c b/drivers/iio/potentiostat/lmp91000.c >>> [] >>>> @@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ static int lmp91000_read_config(struct lmp91000_data *data) >>>> ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "ti,tia-gain-ohm", &val); >>>> if (ret) { >>>> if (!of_property_read_bool(np, "ti,external-tia-resistor")) { >>>> - dev_err(dev, "no ti,tia-gain-ohm defined"); >>>> + dev_err(dev, "no ti,tia-gain-ohm defined\n"); >>> >>> Perhaps a copy/paste error as the test is for >>> external-tia-resistor and not tia-gain-ohm >>> >> It is an odd construct, but I think this is correct. What it is actually >> saying is that, given that we don't have an external resistor, we care >> that the tia-gain-ohm isn't set (otherwise it wouldn't matter). >> >> From the docs >> - ti,external-tia-resistor: if the property ti,tia-gain-ohm is not defined this >> needs to be set to signal that an external resistor value is being used. >> >> So, it might be ideal to say that tia-gain-ohm is not defined and we do >> not have an external resistor specified. >> >> So not wrong, but could be more informative! So perhaps a follow up patch >> to tidy that up would be good. So, this means that it's a good idea to change the dev_err message to something like "no ti,tia-gain-ohm defined and external resistor not specified"? > > Then thanks in advance for doing that. > cheers, Joe >
On Tue, 26 Feb 2019 17:15:52 -0300 Lucas Oshiro <lucasseikioshiro@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks for the review! > > On 20/02/2019 19:22, Joe Perches wrote: > > On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 09:49 +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > >> On Mon, 18 Feb 2019 13:01:23 -0800 Joe Perches <joe@perches.com> wrote: > >>> On Mon, 2019-02-18 at 14:22 -0300, Lucas Oshiro wrote: > >>>> Add missing '\n' at the end of dev_err message on line 215. > >>> [] > >>>> diff --git a/drivers/iio/potentiostat/lmp91000.c b/drivers/iio/potentiostat/lmp91000.c > >>> [] > >>>> @@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ static int lmp91000_read_config(struct lmp91000_data *data) > >>>> ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "ti,tia-gain-ohm", &val); > >>>> if (ret) { > >>>> if (!of_property_read_bool(np, "ti,external-tia-resistor")) { > >>>> - dev_err(dev, "no ti,tia-gain-ohm defined"); > >>>> + dev_err(dev, "no ti,tia-gain-ohm defined\n"); > >>> > >>> Perhaps a copy/paste error as the test is for > >>> external-tia-resistor and not tia-gain-ohm > >>> > >> It is an odd construct, but I think this is correct. What it is actually > >> saying is that, given that we don't have an external resistor, we care > >> that the tia-gain-ohm isn't set (otherwise it wouldn't matter). > >> > >> From the docs > >> - ti,external-tia-resistor: if the property ti,tia-gain-ohm is not defined this > >> needs to be set to signal that an external resistor value is being used. > >> > >> So, it might be ideal to say that tia-gain-ohm is not defined and we do > >> not have an external resistor specified. > >> > >> So not wrong, but could be more informative! So perhaps a follow up patch > >> to tidy that up would be good. > > So, this means that it's a good idea to change the dev_err message to something > like "no ti,tia-gain-ohm defined and external resistor not specified"? Exactly. Thanks, Jonathan > > > > > Then thanks in advance for doing that. > > cheers, Joe > >
diff --git a/drivers/iio/potentiostat/lmp91000.c b/drivers/iio/potentiostat/lmp91000.c index 7229ef59590a..aecdda757586 100644 --- a/drivers/iio/potentiostat/lmp91000.c +++ b/drivers/iio/potentiostat/lmp91000.c @@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ static int lmp91000_read_config(struct lmp91000_data *data) ret = of_property_read_u32(np, "ti,tia-gain-ohm", &val); if (ret) { if (!of_property_read_bool(np, "ti,external-tia-resistor")) { - dev_err(dev, "no ti,tia-gain-ohm defined"); + dev_err(dev, "no ti,tia-gain-ohm defined\n"); return ret; } val = 0;