Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] thermal/drivers/hisi: Remove confusing error message | From | Daniel Lezcano <> | Date | Tue, 8 Aug 2017 12:15:56 +0200 |
| |
On 08/08/2017 09:55, Zhang Rui wrote: > On Fri, 2017-07-07 at 17:03 +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> The sensor id is unknown at init time and we use all id in the >> authorized >> MAX_SENSORS interval to register the sensor. On this SoC there is one >> thermal-zone with one sensor on it. No need to spit on the console >> everytime we >> failed to register thermal sensors, information which is deliberaly >> known as it >> is part of the discovery process. >> >> hisi_thermal f7030700.tsensor: failed to register sensor id 0: -19 >> hisi_thermal f7030700.tsensor: failed to register thermal sensor: >> -19 >> hisi_thermal f7030700.tsensor: failed to register sensor id 1: -19 >> hisi_thermal f7030700.tsensor: failed to register thermal sensor: >> -19 >> hisi_thermal f7030700.tsensor: failed to register sensor id 3: -19 >> hisi_thermal f7030700.tsensor: failed to register thermal sensor: >> -19 >> >> Remove the error messages. >> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> >> --- >> drivers/thermal/hisi_thermal.c | 12 ++++++------ >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/hisi_thermal.c >> b/drivers/thermal/hisi_thermal.c >> index f642966..2cc98c6 100644 >> --- a/drivers/thermal/hisi_thermal.c >> +++ b/drivers/thermal/hisi_thermal.c >> @@ -187,6 +187,9 @@ static int hisi_thermal_get_temp(void *_sensor, >> int *temp) >> >> dev_dbg(&data->pdev->dev, "id=%d, irq=%d, temp=%d, >> thres=%d\n", >> sensor->id, data->irq_enabled, *temp, sensor- >>> thres_temp); >> + >> + printk("id=%d, irq=%d, temp=%d, thres=%d\n", >> + sensor->id, data->irq_enabled, *temp, sensor- >>> thres_temp); > > what's this printk for?
Argh. It shouldn't be there.
>> /* >> * Bind irq to sensor for two cases: >> * Reenable alarm IRQ if temperature below threshold; >> @@ -260,8 +263,6 @@ static int hisi_thermal_register_sensor(struct >> platform_device *pdev, >> if (IS_ERR(sensor->tzd)) { >> ret = PTR_ERR(sensor->tzd); >> sensor->tzd = NULL; >> - dev_err(&pdev->dev, "failed to register sensor id >> %d: %d\n", >> - sensor->id, ret); >> return ret; >> } >> >> @@ -352,10 +353,9 @@ static int hisi_thermal_probe(struct >> platform_device *pdev) >> ret = hisi_thermal_register_sensor(pdev, data, >> &data- >>> sensors[i], i); >> if (ret) >> - dev_err(&pdev->dev, >> - "failed to register thermal sensor: >> %d\n", ret); >> - else >> - hisi_thermal_toggle_sensor(&data- >>> sensors[i], true); >> + continue; >> + >> + hisi_thermal_toggle_sensor(&data->sensors[i], true); >> } >> >> return 0; > > With these removed, is there any other information in dmesg that > suggests this failure?
The problem is there are always failures showed in dmesg. The init function is based on the assumption there is HISI_MAX_SENSORS sensors which is not true for the hi6220 and that raises at boot time errors.
Why HISI_MAX_SENSORS(=4) while there is only one on hi6220 AFAIK? and this driver is only used for hi6220 (now).
That ends up with 3 errors in dmesg for nothing.
-- <http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook | <http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter | <http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
| |