Re: [PATCH][MIPS] merge a few printk in check_wait()

[Yoichi Yuasa <yoichi_yuasa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:15:52 +0100
Ralf Baechle <ralf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 06:00:02PM +0200, Franck Bui-Huu wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 	printk(" %savailable.\n", cpu_wait ? "" : "un");
> 
> Or more radical, just getting rid of the printk entirely?  It doesn't
> provide very useful information.
> 
>   Ralf
> 

I agree with you.
I updated my patch.

Yoichi

Signed-off-by: Yoichi Yuasa <yoichi_yuasa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

diff -pruN -X mips/Documentation/dontdiff mips-orig/arch/mips/kernel/cpu-probe.c mips/arch/mips/kernel/cpu-probe.c
--- mips-orig/arch/mips/kernel/cpu-probe.c	2006-10-19 10:27:36.246613000 +0900
+++ mips/arch/mips/kernel/cpu-probe.c	2006-10-19 10:28:08.504629000 +0900
@@ -120,11 +120,9 @@ static inline void check_wait(void)
 	case CPU_R3081:
 	case CPU_R3081E:
 		cpu_wait = r3081_wait;
-		printk(" available.\n");
 		break;
 	case CPU_TX3927:
 		cpu_wait = r39xx_wait;
-		printk(" available.\n");
 		break;
 	case CPU_R4200:
 /*	case CPU_R4300: */
@@ -146,33 +144,23 @@ static inline void check_wait(void)
 	case CPU_74K:
  	case CPU_PR4450:
 		cpu_wait = r4k_wait;
-		printk(" available.\n");
 		break;
 	case CPU_TX49XX:
 		cpu_wait = r4k_wait_irqoff;
-		printk(" available.\n");
 		break;
 	case CPU_AU1000:
 	case CPU_AU1100:
 	case CPU_AU1500:
 	case CPU_AU1550:
 	case CPU_AU1200:
-		if (allow_au1k_wait) {
+		if (allow_au1k_wait)
 			cpu_wait = au1k_wait;
-			printk(" available.\n");
-		} else
-			printk(" unavailable.\n");
 		break;
 	case CPU_RM9000:
-		if ((c->processor_id & 0x00ff) >= 0x40) {
+		if ((c->processor_id & 0x00ff) >= 0x40)
 			cpu_wait = r4k_wait;
-			printk(" available.\n");
-		} else {
-			printk(" unavailable.\n");
-		}
 		break;
 	default:
-		printk(" unavailable.\n");
 		break;
 	}
 }