On 01/10/2017 11:59 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:37:24AM -0700, Shuah Khan wrote: >> On 01/10/2017 11:23 AM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: >>> I also think that regardless of what is decided on making susp_clk >>> non-optional for some Exynos SoCs we should probably remove the debug >>> message as it doesn't bring useful information and may be confusing. >>> >>> Shuah, can you take care of this? >> >> Yes. This message as it reads now is not only confusing, but also can >> lead users to think something is wrong. >> >> I can get rid of it or I could change it from info to debug and change >> it to read: >> >> "Optional Suspend clock isn't found. Diver operation isn't impacted" > > It is even more confusing. If the clock is required (by binding, by > hardware) - make it an error. If it is completely not important - do not > print anything. If it is optional but helpful (enabling clock gives > someything) then print something... but it is not that case. > > Best regards, > Krzysztof > Sounds fair. I will send a patch to remove the message. -- Shuah -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |