Re: [PATCH] gpiolib: demote the hogging log messages to debug

[Frank Rowand <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 6/9/23 08:47, Rob Herring wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 5, 2023 at 6:53 AM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> From: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Drivers should be silent when they work correctly. There's no reason to
>> emit info messages when GPIO lines are hogged. Demote the message to
>> debug.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Suggested-by: Kent Gibson <warthog618@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c |  2 +-
>>  drivers/of/unittest.c  | 16 ++++++++--------
>>  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
>> index a7220e04a93e..e4515bda8915 100644
>> --- a/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
>> +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpiolib.c
>> @@ -4243,7 +4243,7 @@ int gpiod_hog(struct gpio_desc *desc, const char *name,
>>         /* Mark GPIO as hogged so it can be identified and removed later */
>>         set_bit(FLAG_IS_HOGGED, &desc->flags);
>>
>> -       gpiod_info(desc, "hogged as %s%s\n",
>> +       gpiod_dbg(desc, "hogged as %s%s\n",
>>                 (dflags & GPIOD_FLAGS_BIT_DIR_OUT) ? "output" : "input",
>>                 (dflags & GPIOD_FLAGS_BIT_DIR_OUT) ?
>>                   (dflags & GPIOD_FLAGS_BIT_DIR_VAL) ? "/high" : "/low" : "");
>> diff --git a/drivers/of/unittest.c b/drivers/of/unittest.c
>> index 2191c0136531..0060334a98a7 100644
>> --- a/drivers/of/unittest.c
>> +++ b/drivers/of/unittest.c
>> @@ -1849,19 +1849,19 @@ static void __init of_unittest_overlay_gpio(void)
>>          * driver is registered
>>          */
>>
>> -       EXPECT_BEGIN(KERN_INFO,
>> +       EXPECT_BEGIN(KERN_DEBUG,
>>                      "gpio-<<int>> (line-B-input): hogged as input\n");
> 
> As debug messages are normally off, I think you can just remove these.

This patch is an example of exactly why the message level is the first parameter
passed to EXPECT_*().  The test results are then _always_ valid, not just
_normally_.

-Frank

> 
> Rob