On Sat, Feb 09, 2013 at 03:05:31PM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote:
> 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.
my bad, should've read the code more carefuly. Indeed it looks more like
a warning as we continue to try to use the IP. My bad.
--
balbi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
