[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <fc01df37-3e7e-0c71-745d-63fbd83c1079@metux.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 18:20:31 +0200
From: "Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <lkml@...ux.net>
To: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@....fr>,
"Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult" <info@...ux.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: lorenzo.pieralisi@....com, linux-ia64@...r.kernel.org,
linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, andrew@...id.au,
gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, sudeep.holla@....com,
liviu.dudau@....com, linux-mips@...r.kernel.org, vz@...ia.com,
linux@...sktech.co.nz, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
khilman@...libre.com, macro@...ux-mips.org,
slemieux.tyco@...il.com, matthias.bgg@...il.com, jacmet@...site.dk,
linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org,
andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 22/41] drivers: tty: serial: cpm_uart: fix logging calls
On 29.04.19 17:59, Christophe Leroy wrote:
> If we want to do something useful, wouldn't it make more sense to
> introduce the use of dev_err() in order to identify the faulting device
> in the message ?
Well, I could get the struct device* pointer via pinfo.port->dev,
but I wasn't entirely sure that it's always defined before these
functions could be called.
Shall I change it to dev_*() ?
--mtx
--
Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult
Free software and Linux embedded engineering
info@...ux.net -- +49-151-27565287
Powered by blists - more mailing lists