Re: [PATCH 6/9] staging: vc04_services: Drop vchiq_log_error() in favour of dev_dbg

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 03:49:41PM +0200, Laurent Pinchart wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 01:02:45PM +0000, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 07, 2023 at 04:51:53AM -0500, Umang Jain wrote:
> > > Drop vchiq_log_error() macro which wraps dev_dbg(). Introduce the usage
> > > of dev_dbg() directly.
> > > 
> > > Add a new enum vchiq_log_type and log_type() helper to faciliate the
> > > type of logging in dev_dbg(). This will help to determine the type of
> > > logging("error", "warning", "debug", "trace") to dynamic debug.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Umang Jain <umang.jain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  .../interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c           |  54 ++++----
> > >  .../interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_connected.c     |   6 +-
> > >  .../interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_core.c          | 126 ++++++++++--------
> > >  .../interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_core.h          |  23 +++-
> > >  .../interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_dev.c           |  47 ++++---
> > >  5 files changed, 143 insertions(+), 113 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
> > > index 9fb3e240d9de..2cb2a6503058 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_arm.c
> > > @@ -696,8 +696,8 @@ int vchiq_initialise(struct vchiq_instance **instance_out)
> > >  
> > >  	instance = kzalloc(sizeof(*instance), GFP_KERNEL);
> > >  	if (!instance) {
> > > -		vchiq_log_error(state->dev, VCHIQ_CORE,
> > > -				"%s: error allocating vchiq instance\n", __func__);
> > > +		dev_dbg(state->dev, "%s: %s: %s: error allocating vchiq instance\n",
> > > +			log_cat(VCHIQ_CORE), log_type(ERROR), __func__);
> > 
> > All dev_dbg() calls have __func__ in them automatically, you never need
> > to duplicate it again as that's redundant :(
> 
> Oh ? I didn't know that, and can't find it in the code. I may be missing
> something though. Are you referring to the +f flag for dynamic debug
> entries ? It won't work if dynamic debug isn't enabled though, but maybe
> we don't care about that ?

Yes, the "f" flag is what controls this, and if dynamic debug isn't
enabled, you don't get any message here and we don't care about it :)

thanks,

greg k-h




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Driver Development]     [Linux Driver Backports]     [DMA Engine]     [Linux GPIO]     [Linux SPI]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Coverity]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [Yosemite Backpacking]
  Powered by Linux