lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jun]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] pstore/ram: Add ramoops support for the Flattened Device Tree.
    From
    On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org> wrote:
    >
    > On 06/05/12 12:59, Bryan Freed wrote:
    > > When called with a non-zero of_node, fill out a new
    > > ramoops_platform_data
    > > with data from the specified Flattened Device Tree node.
    > > Update ramoops documentation with the new FDT interface.
    > >
    > > Change-Id: Id8f9f0abc5b564375c1b6d5d30c92d57d76520b7
    > > Signed-off-by: Bryan Freed <bfreed@chromium.org>
    > > ---
    > >  Documentation/ramoops.txt |   19 +++++++++++++++++--
    > >  fs/pstore/ram.c           |   43
    > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    > >  2 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
    >
    > Can you document the binding in Documentation/devicetree/bindings/* too?

    Good point, Stephen. Will do...

    >
    > > diff --git a/fs/pstore/ram.c b/fs/pstore/ram.c
    > > index 9123cce..bf0f882 100644
    > > --- a/fs/pstore/ram.c
    > > +++ b/fs/pstore/ram.c
    > > @@ -213,6 +248,14 @@ static int __init ramoops_probe(struct
    > > platform_device *pdev)
    > >       if (cxt->max_count)
    > >               goto fail_out;
    > >
    > > +     if (pdev->dev.of_node) {
    > > +             if (of_ramoops_platform_data(pdev->dev.of_node,
    > > &of_pdata)) {
    > > +                     pr_err("Invalid ramoops device tree data\n");
    >
    > dev_err()?

    I feel dev_err() would be a step in the wrong direction, but I do not
    really know the merits of one vs the other.
    In looking through all of fs/*, I do not see any
    dev_{err|warn|crit|alert|emerg|notice}() calls other than the two
    dev_err() calls added to this file (fs/pstore/ram.c) just a few weeks
    ago.
    I feel more comfortable sticking with this file's "pr_err" convention.
    If that is incorrect, another change should be submitted to change
    them all to dev_err(). In this respect, I think Anton's change of May
    17 (896fc1f0 in my repo) should have followed the pr_err convention.

    Anyone have a strong feeling on dev_err vs pr_err and how/if this
    transition should occur?

    bryan.

    > --
    > Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
    > The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
    >
    --
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-06-06 20:21    [W:2.478 / U:0.152 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site