On Wed, 14 Oct 2026, Yalagada Pavan Kumar wrote:
On Wed, Oct 14, 2026 at 08:32:54AM -0500, Alex Elder wrote:
On 10/13/26 4:43 PM, Yalagada Pavan Kumar wrote:
I think your suggested change is a net positive, but doing it in some spots but not others means it is adding a bit of inconsistency.
I agree that similar cases elsewhere in Greybus are worth checking to keep error reporting consistent. I will look at the other Greybus files for cases where using %pe would be appropriate.
Would you prefer me to extend this change to the other relevant Greybus files, or keep this patch focused on fw-core.c and submit a separate patch for the remaining changes?
I guess I mainly wanted to understand your intent. I don't really mind your proposed change, but I would really prefer to have it be part of an overall plan to upgrade all error messages this way.
I checked all Greybus source files to identify other places where %pe could be used.
Ideally error (and other) messages are done consistently, and so changing them in just one file sort of raises a flag for me.
I agree that keeping error messages consistent across Greybus.
Can you survey the messages elsewhere in the Greybus code and get a sense of how much work it will be to do this comprehensively? Your current patch affects four spots in one source file; how many others would there be?
I found 12 additional cases in arche-apb-ctrl.c and arche-platform.c where using %pe would be appropriate. I also found one additional case in uart.c:954 where the error message could be improved by printing the error name.
I will keep PTR_ERR() calls that are needed to return error codes unchanged.
And if updating everything is a task you're willing to do, then I think I would prefer you extend this change.
I am willing to make these additional changes. Since my original patch is already in staging-next, should i send a v3 of the existing patch or submit a new patch covering all the relevant cases?
v3
julia
Thanks for your guidance.
Pavan
-Alex
-
Julia Lawall