On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 15:50 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 15:37 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> >> PNP0C01:00: new device for \_SB_.PCI0.ISA_.MBIO
> >>
> >> I fiddled with this a while ago; it would look something like this:
> > []
> >> +static noinline_for_stack
> >> +char *acpi_name_string(char *buf, char *end, acpi_handle handle,
> >> + struct printf_spec spec, const char *fmt)
> >> +{
> >> + acpi_status status;
> >> + struct acpi_buffer buffer = { ACPI_ALLOCATE_BUFFER, NULL };
> >> + u32 type = ACPI_SINGLE_NAME;
> >> + char *p = buf;
> >> +
> >> + if (fmt[0] == 'A')
> >> + type = ACPI_FULL_PATHNAME;
> >
> > maybe if (fmt[1] == 'f')
> >
> >> @@ -982,6 +1007,9 @@ char *pointer(const char *fmt, char *buf, char *end, void *ptr,
> >> }
> >>
> >> switch (*fmt) {
> >> + case 'A':
> >> + case 'a':
> >> + return acpi_name_string(buf, end, ptr, spec, fmt);
> >
> > There are only so many letters, it might be better to
> > just use 'a' and another 'f' after that if necessary
> > for "full".
> >
> > And of course that should be #ifdef'd too
>
> Yes. I'm hesitant about this approach in general, because I don't
> think printing the ACPI path is something we should be doing often.
> It's not like a struct resource or a MAC address, where there are
> dozens or hundreds of users. I really think we should only print ACPI
> paths in one or two places, so adding a %p extension would waste a
> letter and encourage the wrong behavior.
That's a good point. I agree. So, let's continue to use
acpi_pr_<level>() for printing ACPI device path. The use of this
interface is limited anyway.
Thanks,
-Toshi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
