Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCHv2 3/4] dw_dmac: change {dev_}printk() to corresponding macros | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Date | Wed, 17 Oct 2012 16:36:58 +0300 |
| |
On Wed, 2012-10-17 at 16:09 +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 01:31:17PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> > > --- > > drivers/dma/dw_dmac.c | 15 ++++++--------- > > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/dma/dw_dmac.c b/drivers/dma/dw_dmac.c > > index c27c125..60b172a 100644 > > --- a/drivers/dma/dw_dmac.c > > +++ b/drivers/dma/dw_dmac.c > > @@ -456,9 +456,8 @@ static void dwc_scan_descriptors(struct dw_dma *dw, struct dw_dma_chan *dwc) > > > > static inline void dwc_dump_lli(struct dw_dma_chan *dwc, struct dw_lli *lli) > > { > > - dev_printk(KERN_CRIT, chan2dev(&dwc->chan), > > - " desc: s0x%x d0x%x l0x%x c0x%x:%x\n", > > - lli->sar, lli->dar, lli->llp, lli->ctlhi, lli->ctllo); > > + dev_crit(chan2dev(&dwc->chan), " desc: s0x%x d0x%x l0x%x c0x%x:%x\n", > > + lli->sar, lli->dar, lli->llp, lli->ctlhi, lli->ctllo); > > is this really critical ? To me it looks more like a debugging message. This one is used in two cases, where one is marked as "error", another - "critical"
> > > } > > > > static void dwc_handle_error(struct dw_dma *dw, struct dw_dma_chan *dwc) > > @@ -492,10 +491,8 @@ static void dwc_handle_error(struct dw_dma *dw, struct dw_dma_chan *dwc) > > * controller flagged an error instead of scribbling over > > * random memory locations. > > */ > > - dev_printk(KERN_CRIT, chan2dev(&dwc->chan), > > - "Bad descriptor submitted for DMA!\n"); > > - dev_printk(KERN_CRIT, chan2dev(&dwc->chan), > > - " cookie: %d\n", bad_desc->txd.cookie); > > + dev_crit(chan2dev(&dwc->chan), "Bad descriptor submitted for DMA!\n"); > > + dev_crit(chan2dev(&dwc->chan), " cookie: %d\n", bad_desc->txd.cookie); > > now this is critical, indeed. I would suggest using dev_WARN_ONCE() so > that it's noisy enough to catch the failing user. To this and upper comment, there is an explanation why it's critical. I guess the WARN_ONCE is not good enough, for example if we have more than one user making such noise.
> > > dwc_dump_lli(dwc, &bad_desc->lli); > > list_for_each_entry(child, &bad_desc->tx_list, desc_node) > > dwc_dump_lli(dwc, &child->lli); > > @@ -1625,8 +1622,8 @@ static int __devinit dw_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) > > > > dma_writel(dw, CFG, DW_CFG_DMA_EN); > > > > - printk(KERN_INFO "%s: DesignWare DMA Controller, %d channels\n", > > - dev_name(&pdev->dev), nr_channels); > > + pr_info("%s: DesignWare DMA Controller, %d channels\n", > > + dev_name(&pdev->dev), nr_channels); > > you have a struct device available in platform_device, please use > dev_info() or dev_dbg(). Agreed.
-- Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> Intel Finland Oy
| |