On 06/18/2010 01:46 PM, Jesse Barnes wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 13:26:32 -0700
"Justin P. Mattock"<justinmattock@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 06/18/2010 01:05 PM, Jesse Barnes wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 12:59:32 -0700
"Justin P. Mattock"<justinmattock@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
just added this in(as a test), and the retval warning still shows up.
with the last post I just added a printk was that legit, and if so what
else might be added to it to make it complete and proper?
What's the full warning? Seems like printing the value should have
been enough to shut up gcc...
this is the warning messg after applying yinghai's patch:
CC drivers/pci/setup-bus.o
drivers/pci/setup-bus.c: In function
'pci_assign_unassigned_bridge_resources':
drivers/pci/setup-bus.c:868:6: warning: variable 'retval' set but not used
Right because Yinghai's patch just sets retval but doesn't actually use
it anywhere.
that's what is confusing..(not being used, but is being used, but gcc
says it's not used..) :-)
if I add a printk then gcc is content.. patch below, but not the best at
creating printk's(the whole % thing messes me up) but here goes:
From 48e15b87072c6b4286d943c55bfe2ae26d358795 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Justin P. Mattock<justinmattock@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 13:23:27 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 4/4] bus.c_add_print
Signed-off-by: Justin P. Mattock<justinmattock@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/pci/setup-bus.c | 1 +
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c b/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c
index 66cb8f4..806b766 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c
@@ -919,6 +919,7 @@ again:
enable_all:
retval = pci_reenable_device(bridge);
+ printk(KERN_DEBUG "PCI%d: re-enabling device\n", retval);
pci_set_master(bridge);
pci_enable_bridges(parent);
}
Again, this doesn't have the if (retval) condition around the printk; I
don't want to see this message everytime regardless. Also the message
is misleading, it should be something like:
dev_err(&bridge->dev, "failed to re-enable device: %d\n", retval)
instead. PCI%d makes it look like we're talking about a specific bus
or something and not an error code.
o.k. I admit I looked at other printk's in this file to get an idea of
what I might do.. saw PCI%d and figured it would print
"PCI: re-enabling device"
but didnt think it was an error... reason for putting KERN_DEBUG.
here is what the new patch looks like:
From f910375438be06497d0524bff146c26cafca272b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Justin P. Mattock <justinmattock@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:08:37 -0700
Subject: [PATCH 4/4] setup-pci_test
Signed-off-by: Justin P. Mattock <justinmattock@xxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/pci/setup-bus.c | 3 +++
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c b/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c
index 66cb8f4..2ab5f1e 100644
--- a/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c
+++ b/drivers/pci/setup-bus.c
@@ -919,6 +919,9 @@ again:
enable_all:
retval = pci_reenable_device(bridge);
+ if (retval) {
+ dev_err(&bridge->dev, "failed to re-enable device: %d\n", retval);
+ }
pci_set_master(bridge);
pci_enable_bridges(parent);
}
--
1.7.1.rc1.21.gf3bd6
should I have put if (!retval) instead
should I put "failed to re-enable bridge device"
is there an exit code needed?
if not and all is good then I can resend this out..
Justin P. Mattock
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
