Re: [PATCH 2/8] i2c: i2c-qcom-geni: Signify successful driver probe

[Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 05 Jun 2019, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:

> On Wed, 5 Jun 2019 at 09:16, Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 04 Jun 2019, Bjorn Andersson wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue 04 Jun 03:44 PDT 2019, Lee Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > > The Qualcomm Geni I2C driver currently probes silently which can be
> > > > confusing when debugging potential issues.  Add a low level (INFO)
> > > > print when each I2C controller is successfully initially set-up.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-qcom-geni.c | 2 ++
> > > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-qcom-geni.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-qcom-geni.c
> > > > index 0fa93b448e8d..e27466d77767 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-qcom-geni.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-qcom-geni.c
> > > > @@ -598,6 +598,8 @@ static int geni_i2c_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > > >             return ret;
> > > >     }
> > > >
> > > > +   dev_info(&pdev->dev, "Geni-I2C adaptor successfully added\n");
> > > > +
> > >
> > > I would prefer that we do not add such prints, as it would be to accept
> > > the downstream behaviour of spamming the log to the point where no one
> > > will ever look through it.
> >
> > We should be able to find a middle ground.  Spamming the log with all
> > sorts of device specific information/debug is obviously not
> > constructive, but a single liner to advertise that an important
> > device/controller has been successfully initialised is more helpful
> > than it is hinderous.
> >
> > This print was added due to the silent initialisation costing me
> > several hours of debugging ACPI device/driver code (albeit learning a
> > lot about ACPI as I go) just to find out that it was already doing the
> > right thing - just very quietly.
> >
> 
> I agree.
> 
> There are numerous EHCI drivers IIRC which, if compiled in,
> unconditionally print some blurb, whether you have the hardware or
> not, which is pretty annoying.
> 
> In this case, however, having a single line per successfully probed
> device (containing the dev_name and perhaps the MMIO base address or
> some other identifying feature) is pretty useful, and shouldn't be
> regarded as log spamming imo. dev_info() honours the 'quiet' kernel
> command line parameter, and so you will only see the message if you
> actually look at the log.

+999

This is exactly as I see it.

If people want a quiet log/fast boot-up times, they can request it.
Otherwise, it's far more useful to trade a second or two for
important information such as which devices are present/enabled on a
platform.

-- 
Lee Jones [李琼斯]
Linaro Services Technical Lead
Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog