linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PCI: dwc: Use dev_info() instead of dev

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sun, 25 Aug 2019 16:26:21 +0100
From:   Jon Hunter <jonathanh@...dia.com>
To:     Vidya Sagar <vidyas@...dia.com>, <gustavo.pimentel@...opsys.com>,
        <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>, <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        <thierry.reding@...il.com>
CC:     <linux-pci@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <kthota@...dia.com>, <mmaddireddy@...dia.com>, <sagar.tv@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PCI: dwc: Use dev_info() instead of dev_err()


On 23/08/2019 16:16, Vidya Sagar wrote:
> When a platform has an open PCIe slot, not having a device connected to
> it doesn't have to result in a dev_err() print saying that the link is
> not up but a dev_info() would suffice.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Vidya Sagar <vidyas@...dia.com>
> ---
>  drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c
> index 59eaeeb21dbe..4d6690b6ca36 100644
> --- a/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c
> +++ b/drivers/pci/controller/dwc/pcie-designware.c
> @@ -456,7 +456,7 @@ int dw_pcie_wait_for_link(struct dw_pcie *pci)
>  		usleep_range(LINK_WAIT_USLEEP_MIN, LINK_WAIT_USLEEP_MAX);
>  	}
>  
> -	dev_err(pci->dev, "Phy link never came up\n");
> +	dev_info(pci->dev, "Phy link never came up\n");

IMO this message is not very descriptive. Why not just say 'no device
connected'? From the changelog it is clear what this means but the
message itself could be clearer. Or should it even be a dev_dbg?

Cheers
Jon

-- 
nvpublic