On 02/22/2017 03:38 AM, Luiz Carlos Ramos wrote:
On 02/21/2017 05:22 PM, Luiz Carlos Ramos wrote:
Two messages are now displayed (at "warn" level) to make sure the user
is aware that PCI IDE devices were detected at common addresses (0x1f0
and 0x170) and that they will not be managed by ide-generic, but rather
delegated to its specific driver.
Signed-off-by: Luiz Carlos Ramos <lramos.prof@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/ide/ide-generic.c | 10 ++++++++++
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/ide/ide-generic.c b/drivers/ide/ide-generic.c
index ee11edcdba3170c077381d603918498d79ffa3bb..2204819ef73612deed4ebfe58c69cdadb40fa53b 100644
--- a/drivers/ide/ide-generic.c
+++ b/drivers/ide/ide-generic.c
@@ -125,9 +125,19 @@ static int __init ide_generic_init(void)
if (primary == 0)
probe_mask |= 0x1;
+ else {
+ printk(KERN_WARN DRV_NAME ": PCI IDE device detected at 0x%4.4x."
Also, please use pr_warn().
This code is quite old, and it is in deep maintenance phase.
Every other message in ide-generic.c is implemented as printk(...),
but to be fair, there are not so many of them.
Given that fact, would it be better to change these two ones to be
inserted to pr_warn() as suggested (and then having a mix of printk()
and pr_warn() in the code), or to "allow" two more printk() in the code
and having checkpatck.pl complaining?
I really don't know what is better or worse. Both can be implemented,
and there are a mix of advantages and disadvantages in each side.
I'd like to hear from you and colleagues about how to proceed.
I'd prefer a checkpatch-clean patch. Though I don't think DaveM would take
further cleanups (printk -> pr_<foo>).
MBR, Sergei
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
