Hi, On mercredi 8 janvier 2025 14:38:11 heure normale d’Europe centrale Tomi Valkeinen wrote: > Hi, > > On 08/01/2025 15:31, Romain Gantois wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On lundi 6 janvier 2025 10:51:20 heure normale d’Europe centrale Tomi > > > > Valkeinen wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On 30/12/2024 15:22, Romain Gantois wrote: > >>> The I2C Address Translator (ATR) module defines mappings from i2c_client > >>> structs to aliases. However, only the physical address of each > >>> i2c_client > > > > ... > > > >>> - dev_dbg(atr->dev, "chan%u: client 0x%02x mapped at alias 0x%02x (%s) > > > > \n", > > > >>> - chan->chan_id, client->addr, alias, client->name); > >>> + dev_dbg(atr->dev, "chan%u: addr 0x%02x mapped at alias 0x%02x\n", > >>> + chan->chan_id, addr, alias); > >> > >> This, and the dev_dbg() below, sound a bit odd to my ear. But I'm not > >> sure what would be a good print... "added alias 0x12 for address 0x34"? > > > > Maybe "assigned address 0x34 to alias 0x12"? Since the alias doesn't > > really go anywhere, we just assign different downstream addresses to it. > > I guess it's how you look at this =). I like to think it (in this > order): alias -> address, as it's basically a mapping. So a debug print > that prints the alias first and address second feels more natural. > "using alias 0x12 for address 0x34"? This seems like a valid view as well. Since you're the ATR maintainer I'll go with your suggestion. Thanks, -- Romain Gantois, Bootlin Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering https://bootlin.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
