On 30/11/2018 12:39 AM, Eduardo Valentin wrote:
> Hey,
>
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2018 at 06:09:41PM +0800, Wei Ni wrote:
>> Convert warnings to info as not all platforms may
>> have all the thresholds and sensors enabled.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Wei Ni <wni@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> drivers/thermal/tegra/soctherm.c | 6 +++---
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/thermal/tegra/soctherm.c b/drivers/thermal/tegra/soctherm.c
>> index ed28110a3535..55cc1f2f6a45 100644
>> --- a/drivers/thermal/tegra/soctherm.c
>> +++ b/drivers/thermal/tegra/soctherm.c
>> @@ -550,7 +550,7 @@ static int tegra_soctherm_set_hwtrips(struct device *dev,
>>
>> ret = tz->ops->get_crit_temp(tz, &temperature);
>> if (ret) {
>> - dev_warn(dev, "thermtrip: %s: missing critical temperature\n",
>> + dev_info(dev, "thermtrip: %s: missing critical temperature\n",
>
> I am mostly ok with your change in direction. But are you sure this is a
> good thing? What about in the case that you have a platform that have
> the crit temp and you really failed to .get_crit_temp()?
If we set the crit temp in DT, but failed to .get_crit_temp(), it mean
the thermal framework have some problems. Since the critical trip is
very important, may be we should still keep "dev_warn" in here?
>
>> sg->name);
>> goto set_throttle;
>> }
>> @@ -569,7 +569,7 @@ static int tegra_soctherm_set_hwtrips(struct device *dev,
>> set_throttle:
>> ret = get_hot_temp(tz, &trip, &temperature);
>> if (ret) {
>> - dev_warn(dev, "throttrip: %s: missing hot temperature\n",
>> + dev_info(dev, "throttrip: %s: missing hot temperature\n",
>> sg->name);
>> return 0;
>> }
>> @@ -600,7 +600,7 @@ static int tegra_soctherm_set_hwtrips(struct device *dev,
>> }
>>
>> if (i == THROTTLE_SIZE)
>> - dev_warn(dev, "throttrip: %s: missing throttle cdev\n",
>> + dev_info(dev, "throttrip: %s: missing throttle cdev\n",
>> sg->name);
>>
>> return 0;
>> --
>> 2.7.4
>>
