Em 30-09-2010 16:27, Michael Krufky escreveu:
> On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 3:16 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
> <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Em 30-09-2010 15:57, Michael Krufky escreveu:
>>> On Tue, Sep 28, 2010 at 2:46 PM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab
>>> <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> Instead of doing:
>>>>
>>>> [ 82.581639] tda18271 4-0060: creating new instance
>>>> [ 82.588411] Unknown device detected @ 4-0060, device not supported.
>>>> [ 82.594695] tda18271_attach: [4-0060|M] error -22 on line 1272
>>>> [ 82.600530] tda18271 4-0060: destroying instance
>>>>
>>>> Print:
>>>> [ 468.740392] Unknown device (0) detected @ 4-0060, device not supported.
>>>>
>>>> for the error message, to help detecting what's going wrong with the
>>>> device.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/media/common/tuners/tda18271-fe.c b/drivers/media/common/tuners/tda18271-fe.c
>>>> index 7955e49..77e3642 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/media/common/tuners/tda18271-fe.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/media/common/tuners/tda18271-fe.c
>>>> @@ -1177,7 +1177,7 @@ static int tda18271_get_id(struct dvb_frontend *fe)
>>>> break;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> - tda_info("%s detected @ %d-%04x%s\n", name,
>>>> + tda_info("%s (%i) detected @ %d-%04x%s\n", name, regs[R_ID] & 0x7f,
>>>> i2c_adapter_id(priv->i2c_props.adap),
>>>> priv->i2c_props.addr,
>>>> (0 == ret) ? "" : ", device not supported.");
>>>
>>> A patch like this is fine for testing, but I see no reason for merging
>>> this into the kernel. Can you provide an explaination as per why this
>>> would be useful? In general, if you see, "Unknown device detected @
>>> X-00YY, device not supported." then it means that this is not a
>>> tda182x1.
>>
>> cx231xx have 4 I2C buses. The device I'm working with have the tuner at the wrong chip.
>> As it doesn't support 0 byte transactions, if you try to read from the wrong i2c, it will
>> just return 0 to all read requests.
>>
>> So, this kind of message can be very useful if someone sends us a report about a new device.
>> The changes are small and are printed only in the case of errors, where people will likely
>> try to reach the developers. So, I think it is a good idea to have it mainstream.
>
> Mauro,
>
> I think that's a reasonable explanation. Would you be open to
> reworking the patch such that the register contents only show up if
> the device is not recognized? (when ret < 0) . In the case where the
> device is correctly identified (ret == 0), I'd rather preserve the
> original successful detection message, and not see the ID register
> contents.
Ok, sure. I'll do it.
Thanks,
Mauro.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-media" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
