Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Tue, 3 Nov 2020 21:36:54 +0100 | From | Tabot Kevin <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] Replaced hard coded function names in debug messages with __func__ macro. |
| |
On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 10:04:40AM +0000, Daniel Thompson wrote: > On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 01:15:56PM +0100, Tabot Kevin wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 09:33:24AM +0000, Daniel Thompson wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 05:41:03PM +0100, Tabot Kevin wrote: > > > > This patch fixes the following: > > > > - Uses __func__ macro to print function names. > > > > - Got rid of unnecessary braces around single line if statements. > > > > - End of block comments on a seperate line. > > > > - A spelling mistake of the word "on". > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Tabot Kevin <tabot.kevin@gmail.com> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/staging/media/atomisp/i2c/atomisp-ov2680.c | 25 +++++++++++----------- > > > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/i2c/atomisp-ov2680.c b/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/i2c/atomisp-ov2680.c > > > > index c907305..1396a33 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/i2c/atomisp-ov2680.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/i2c/atomisp-ov2680.c > > > > @@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ static int ov2680_g_bin_factor_x(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, s32 *val) > > > > struct ov2680_device *dev = to_ov2680_sensor(sd); > > > > struct i2c_client *client = v4l2_get_subdevdata(sd); > > > > > > > > - dev_dbg(&client->dev, "++++ov2680_g_bin_factor_x\n"); > > > > + dev_dbg(&client->dev, "++++%s\n", __func__); > > > > > > It might be better just to remove this sort of message. > > > > > > They are not "wrong wrong" but are they actually useful one a > > > driver's basic functions work? Even where they are useful > > > dynamic techniques (ftrace, tracepoints, etc) arguably provide a > > > better way to support "did my function actually run" debug > > > approaches anyway. > > > > Thank you very much for the response. So, should I just revert back to > > the original all the changes in places where I replace hard coded > > functions names with __func__? > > [Responses on LKML should be quoted like this rather than top-posted] > > Personally I think it is better to remove them completely from the > driver rather than revert to the original form. Naturally if Mauro or > Sakari have strong views on this kind of printed message then you > need to take that into account but, in general, messages like this > add little or no value to the driver and can be removed. > I went through the code in an attempt to completely remove all "dev_dbg" messages, but I noticed not only are there many "dev_dbg" messages, there are also many such messages like (dev_info, dev_err, etc). Should I remove them all too? > > > > > @@ -251,8 +251,8 @@ static long __ov2680_set_exposure(struct v4l2_subdev *sd, int coarse_itg, > > > > int ret, exp_val; > > > > > > > > dev_dbg(&client->dev, > > > > - "+++++++__ov2680_set_exposure coarse_itg %d, gain %d, digitgain %d++\n", > > > > - coarse_itg, gain, digitgain); > > > > + "+++++++%s coarse_itg %d, gain %d, digitgain %d++\n", > > > > + __func__, coarse_itg, gain, digitgain); > > This case is a little less clear cut since the printed message does show > some elements of internal state. However AFAICT this function just writes > some state to the hardware so I still take the view that dynamic > tools (I2C tracepoints for example) provide a better way to debug the > driver. > > > Daniel.
| |