On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 05:39:52AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-11-13 at 20:24 +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 07:33:40PM +0100, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > > > > > That is because if you look at the only caller of this function,
> > > > > > which is pch_i2c_wait_for_check_xfer(), you will see that at the
> > > > > > only place where pch_i2c_getack() is called there is already
> > > > > > pch_dbg():
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 369 if (pch_i2c_getack(adap)) {
> > > > > > 370 pch_dbg(adap, "Receive NACK for slave address"
> > > > > > 371 "setting\n");
> > > > > > 372 return -EIO;
> > > > > > 373 }
> > >
> > > Sorry i misunderstood that. You are absolutly right, thats the best
> > > solution for that. Remove the pch_err at getack so that only the pch_dbg
> > > get printed where getack is called. This should be enough information.
> >
> > No problem ;-)
>
> If this is the approach taken, please coalesce the format.
> As is there's a missing space between address and setting.
> This should be:
>
> pch_dbg(adap, "Received NACK for slave address setting\n");
>
>
Hi,
yes you are right, i will also add it and resand the patch in a few days.
regards
Andy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-i2c" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
