On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 4:27 PM, Wolfgang Denk wd@denx.de wrote:
Dear Sam,
In message 20180719222843.28316-1-semen.protsenko@linaro.org you wrote:
- With no "Failed" message, at some point we *can* end up with no error messages printed at all
That would mean that we did not check the whole call tree as needed. It is not that complicated, or is it?
I've checked the error chain for FAT/MMC env load: [1]. As for the rest of possible sources, frankly I didn't check, as I don't have such boards at my disposal anyway, and I may not be aware of all sources we have. That's why I've only corrected the path for loading from FAT, which I can test and can argue it's working right. I will add the comment in env_load() saying that error message must be printed from underlying subsystem, and it should be exactly one error. If we catch any related issues further, we can check it on the sport. I hope you're ok with this approach, as fixing all possible error cases for all possible sources in at once seems to be too complex task. And some further messages can appear further, if someone would manage to get such a patch merged. So let's start with clear requirement in env_load().
[1] https://pastebin.com/q6kgpprb
- Removing some collateral error messages *may* lead to loss of useful debug info in other use-cases (env_load() is not only user of those APIs).
I dislike the "can" and "may" parts here. If this is done thoroughly, we should know exactly that no such damage gets done.
Agree. Also, I like Tom's suggestion to move those to debug() instead of removing.
As I mentioend before: if we get here, somewhere an error must have occurred. And in the error handling an error message (one) must be printed.
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
-- DENX Software Engineering GmbH, Managing Director: Wolfgang Denk HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd@denx.de Software entities are more complex for their size than perhaps any other human construct because no two parts are alike. If they are, we make the two similar parts into a subroutine -- open or closed. In this respect, software systems differ profoundly from computers, buildings, or automobiles, where repeated elements abound. - Fred Brooks, Jr.