On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 06:55:32PM +0200, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 01:38:16PM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> > Since the condition is not an error but a warning, replace
> > printk KERN_ERR with dev_warn.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc-onenand.c | 2 +-
> > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc-onenand.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc-onenand.c
> > index 4771945..fd6e35b 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc-onenand.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/gpmc-onenand.c
> > @@ -367,7 +367,7 @@ void gpmc_onenand_init(struct omap_onenand_platform_data *_onenand_data)
> >
> > if (cpu_is_omap24xx() &&
> > (gpmc_onenand_data->flags & ONENAND_SYNC_READWRITE)) {
> > - printk(KERN_ERR "Onenand using only SYNC_READ on 24xx\n");
> > + dev_warn(dev, "OneNAND using only SYNC_READ on 24xx\n");
>
> it would seem more natural to use dev_err() instead.
>
Are you sure? The error seems more a warning to me,
although I guess it's arguable.
Let me know and I'll fix it in v2.
--
Ezequiel García, Free Electrons
Embedded Linux, Kernel and Android Engineering
http://free-electrons.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
