[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ADE657CA350FB648AAC2C43247A983F001F39D748D0C@AUSP01VMBX24.collaborationhost.net>
Date: Tue, 6 Sep 2011 19:15:38 -0500
From: H Hartley Sweeten <hartleys@...ionengravers.com>
To: Greg KH <greg@...ah.com>
CC: Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"devel@...verdev.osuosl.org" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
"hverkuil@...all.nl" <hverkuil@...all.nl>,
"gregkh@...e.de" <gregkh@...e.de>,
"mchehab@...hat.com" <mchehab@...hat.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] Staging: dt3155v4l: Convert printk's to pr_<level>
On Tuesday, September 06, 2011 4:53 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 04:53:55PM -0700, H Hartley Sweeten wrote:
>> Convert all the printk(KERN_<level>) messages in the driver to pr_<level>()
>> and use pr_fmt to provide the module name.
>
> What's wrong with using dev_* instead of pr_*? Lots of these should be
> converted to that format instead, right?
Nothing... dev_* should be used when possible.
Actually all of the messages look like they are just plain noise and should
be removed. Especially the ones in dt3155_{init,exit}_module. A lot of the
ones in dt3155_probe look like noise also.
The ones in {read,write,wait}_i2c_reg just look messy. Those functions also
don't have a device pointer to use the dev_* functions.
The ones in dt3155_irq_handler seem troublesome. Isn't it a bad idea to output
a kernel message in an interrupt handler?
dt3155_{open,close} also look like noise. Same with dt3155_init_board.
Maybe I should just submit a patch removing all of them?
Regards,
Hartley
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists