On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 09:48:31AM +0100, Juergen Beisert wrote:
> Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 09:29:56AM +0100, Juergen Beisert wrote:
> > > Wolfram Sang wrote:
> > > > Signed-off-by: Wolfram Sang <w.sang@pengutronix.de>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/dma/apbh_dma.c |    4 +++-
> > > >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/dma/apbh_dma.c b/drivers/dma/apbh_dma.c
> > > > index 363878f..d30b8fb 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/dma/apbh_dma.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/dma/apbh_dma.c
> > > > @@ -555,7 +555,9 @@ int mxs_dma_init(void)
> > > >  	int ret, channel;
> > > >  	u32 val, reg;
> > > >
> > > > -	mxs_reset_block(apbh_regs, 0);
> > > > +	ret = mxs_reset_block(apbh_regs, 0);
> > > > +	if (ret)
> > > > +		return ret;
> > >
> > > In this case the user faces a "MXS: Timeout resetting block via register
> > > ...". Do you think this message is helpful to give the user a pointer
> > > *where* the failure happens?
> >
> > Yes, since it points to the IP core which was used here. Which again,
> > makes clear which driver was trying to reset the IP core.
> 
> You mean the reported register offset points to the corresponding IP core?

Yes, sure. Otherwise the error message would be useless :)

> But also Barebox has more users than developers.

There is nothing a user could do in this case except asking a developer
what could have happened? And that's the best option here.

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Wolfram Sang                |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |