[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAErSpo6BCtM8zJS=yNTNTugXW--8PpuRhod2GAydZj38tCo+-w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 13:01:06 -0500
From: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>
To: Rajat Jain <rajatja@...gle.com>
Cc: "linux-pci@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] PCI: pciehp: Clean up debug logging
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Rajat Jain <rajatja@...gle.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com> wrote:
>> The pciehp debug logging is overly verbose and often redundant. Almost all
>> of the information printed by dbg_ctrl() is also printed by the normal PCI
>> core enumeration code and by pcie_init().
>>
>> Remove the redundant debug info.
>>
>> When claiming a pciehp bridge, we print the slot characteristics, e.g.,
>>
>> Slot #6 AttnBtn- AttnInd- PwrInd- PwrCtrl- MRL- Interlock- NoCompl+ LLActRep+
>>
>> Add the Hot-Plug Capable and Hot-Plug Surprise bits to this information,
>
> If the slot is not hotplug capable. then pciehp wouldn't claim it in
> the first place.
>
> So printing of "hotplug capable" may really not be needed..
Yes, I did think about that, and you're right that it probably isn't
needed. But the criteria for claiming a slot and deciding whether
acpiphp or pciehp should manage it are not 100% clear yet, so I
figured it wouldn't hurt to be a bit more transparent.
Bjorn
--
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