On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Rajat Jain <rajatja@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> The pciehp debug logging is overly verbose and often redundant. Almost all >>> of the information printed by dbg_ctrl() is also printed by the normal PCI >>> core enumeration code and by pcie_init(). >>> >>> Remove the redundant debug info. >>> >>> When claiming a pciehp bridge, we print the slot characteristics, e.g., >>> >>> Slot #6 AttnBtn- AttnInd- PwrInd- PwrCtrl- MRL- Interlock- NoCompl+ LLActRep+ >>> >>> Add the Hot-Plug Capable and Hot-Plug Surprise bits to this information, >> >> If the slot is not hotplug capable. then pciehp wouldn't claim it in >> the first place. >> >> So printing of "hotplug capable" may really not be needed.. > > Yes, I did think about that, and you're right that it probably isn't > needed. But the criteria for claiming a slot and deciding whether > acpiphp or pciehp should manage it are not 100% clear yet, so I > figured it wouldn't hurt to be a bit more transparent. Sounds right. Reviewed-by : Rajat Jain <rajatja@xxxxxxxxxx> Side note: To clarify when and why the slot was claimed by pciehp or acpihp, do you think we need some mumbling / logging in acpi_pci_detect_ejectable() or pciehp_acpi_slot_detection_check()? > > Bjorn -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-pci" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
