On Fri, May 04, 2012 at 07:25:00PM +0300, Tomas Melin wrote: > On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, May 03, 2012 at 06:27:36PM +0300, Tomas Melin wrote: > >> Corrected formatting for several DPRINT messages. > >> > > > > This patch is fine, but eventually these will have to changed to: > > > > dev_dbg(dev->class_dev, > > "adv_pci1710 EDBG: BGN: pci171x_ai_cmdtest(...) err=%d ret=1\n", > > err); > > > > Ok, I see. So dev_dbg() should always be preffered for debug printing? > Yep. I think dev_info() and friends are prefered now. Btw, are you subscribed to the driver-devel mailing list? Hm... This email should have been CC'd to that list, but it's not. There was a discussion earlier about whether dev->class_dev was the right device pointer to use. I think we decided it was. But it would be good if someone were testing this. I assume you don't have the hardware. > Also while we are at it, how strict is the rule that printk:s should > include KERN_ facility level statements? are missing facility levels > worth patching? > I think instead of adding KERN_ levels we're trying to move to dev_warn() etc. regards, dan carpenter -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-janitors" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
