On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 11:34:53AM -0500, Jean Delvare wrote: > 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. > I don't think there can be other reasons, unless there is a bug somewhere, which of course is always possible. Only reason for bringing it up was that someone had complained about the missing /dev/freefall a couple of months ago. Anyway, since Eric is fine with pr_debug, let's stick with it. Guenter _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
