On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 02:21:48PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > On Fri, Jul 15, 2016 at 01:38:12PM +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> Bin Gao <bin.gao@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >> > +static void print_message(int port, bool is_cmsg, u8 msg, bool recv)
> >> > +{
> >> > + pr_info("sink port %d: %s message %s %s\n", port,
> >> > + is_cmsg ? "Control" : "Data",
> >> > + msg_to_string(is_cmsg, msg),
> >> > + recv ? "received" : "sent(wait GOODCRC)");
> >> > +}
> >>
> >> this is problematic. By default, we're all using 115200 8N1 baud
> >> rate. This message alone prints anywhere from 50 to 100 characters (I
> >> didn't really count properly, these are rough numbers), and that takes:
> >>
> >> n50chars_time = 50 / (115200 / 10) = 4.3ms
> >> n100chars_time = 100 / (115200 / 10) = 8.6ms
> >>
> >> Considering you have 30ms to reply with Power Request after GoodCRC, and
> >> considering you're printing several of these messages, they become
> >> really expensive and eat up valuable time from tSenderReply.
> >
> > printk() should be async, so it shouldn't be that big of a deal.
>
> I can actually see this causing problems ;-) With this pr_info(),
> sometimes tSenderReply times out and Source gives a HardReset. Without
> pr_info(), type-c analyzer tells me we reply in less than 1ms.
>
> > What is wrong is that this isn't using dev_info().
>
> right, that too.
>
> --
> balbi
When we don't have a struct device pointer for this driver,
a dev_info(NULL, fmt, ...) is equivalent to pr_info(). So we have to
use dev_info() here?
But I agree at least it should be pr_debug().
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
