On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 07:53:01 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote: > On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 10:09:15AM -0500, Alan Cox wrote: > > From: Kalhan Trisal <kalhan.trisal@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Turn down the no IRQ message - on some platforms that's a normal state of > > affairs. > > > > Signed-off-by: Kalhan Trisal <kalhan.trisal@xxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Wondering - pr_err was too strong, but maybe pr_info would make sense > to inform the user that /dev/freefall won't work. Otherwise we may get > support requests with people complaining about it, and we won't be able > to see the reason. > > Thoughts ? The comment says: "on some platforms that's a normal state of affairs". So it's down to: can there be other reasons to the missing IRQ than these platforms where we expect it? If not, then pr_debug() is right. If there is, then we need separate messages for the expected and unexpected cases. -- Jean Delvare _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
