Messages in this thread | | | From | Geert Uytterhoeven <> | Date | Mon, 18 Oct 2021 13:47:06 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Input: gpio-keys - print button label in IRQ button error messages |
| |
Hi Dmitry,
On Sat, Oct 16, 2021 at 7:34 AM Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 24, 2021 at 09:18:02AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > > When an error message related to IRQ buttons is printed, no clue is > > given about the actual button that caused the failure. Fix this by > > including the button label, to make it more obvious which button has an > > incomplete or incorrect hardware description. > > > > Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> > > --- > > drivers/input/keyboard/gpio_keys.c | 6 ++++-- > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/input/keyboard/gpio_keys.c b/drivers/input/keyboard/gpio_keys.c > > index 0f2250c6aa4978d5..fc706918d7b103cb 100644 > > --- a/drivers/input/keyboard/gpio_keys.c > > +++ b/drivers/input/keyboard/gpio_keys.c > > @@ -617,14 +617,16 @@ static int gpio_keys_setup_key(struct platform_device *pdev, > > } > > } else { > > if (!button->irq) { > > - dev_err(dev, "Found button without gpio or irq\n"); > > + dev_err(dev, "Found button %s without gpio or irq\n", > > + desc); > > I do not believe description is mandatory, so we may end up printing > "gpio_keys" here. I wonder if it would not be more reliable to print the > index of the problematic key?
The description (label) is indeed not mandatory, so without that it is as good as before ;-)
For the index, I'm wondering if the iteration order is unambiguous, and cannot change?
So perhaps we want to print both ("button %u (%s)")?
Thanks!
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
-- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@linux-m68k.org
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
| |