>>>> @@ -258,7 +256,6 @@ static int usbtll_omap_probe(struct platform_device
>>>> *pdev)
>>>> GFP_KERNEL);
>>>> if (!tll->ch_clk) {
>>>> ret = -ENOMEM;
>>>> - dev_err(dev, "Couldn't allocate memory for channel clocks\n");
>>>
>>> I'd either leave this one, just to know which allocation failed or better
>>> use
>>> something like this …
>>
>> Are you aware on the structure for a Linux allocation failure report?
>
> Just created one (not OMAP and not this driver, but that does not matter now):
Thanks for your example.
> ---[ end trace 3c79eadf2363e939 ]---
> max9867: probe of 1-0018 failed with error -12
>
> driver was instructed to alloc insane number of bytes using devm_kzalloc in
> max9867_i2c_probe.
> Now, if probe function calls devm_kzalloc two times and one of them fails,
> you cannot easily say which one without looking at assembly listing.
Will this situation change with any other implementation for such backtraces?
> Or did I misunderstand your question?
No. - It seems that we have found a “common wavelength”.
Would it become acceptable to move the mentioned memory allocation into
an additional function implementation so that you could see a difference
from the function call stack dump already?
Regards,
Markus
