[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <96152ac15f5a4dd8901d6b126da8e7e2@realtek.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2023 07:40:23 +0000
From: Stanley Chang[昌育德]
<stanley_chang@...ltek.com>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC: Vinod Koul <vkoul@...nel.org>,
Kishon Vijay Abraham I <kishon@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh+dt@...nel.org>,
Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski+dt@...aro.org>,
Conor Dooley <conor+dt@...nel.org>,
Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
Ray Chi <raychi@...gle.com>,
Michael Grzeschik <m.grzeschik@...gutronix.de>,
Flavio Suligoi <f.suligoi@...m.it>,
Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org>,
Mathias Nyman <mathias.nyman@...ux.intel.com>,
"linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-phy@...ts.infradead.org>,
"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 3/5] phy: realtek: usb: Add driver for the Realtek SoC USB 3.0 PHY
> >> Please drop all simple debug success messages. Linux has already
> >> infrastructure for this.
> >>
> > Okay. I will change the print dev_info to dev_dbg about debug message.
>
> No, drop them. This piece of code had already 2 printks for register contents!
> Your driver is overloaded with printks and they are mostly useless for the user.
I will drop them to simplify the code.
> >> Please drop all simple debug success messages. Linux has already
> >> infrastructure for this.
> >
> > Can I keep log for dev_dbg?
>
> Of course not. This was dev_dbg and I commented on this. This is not a good
> debug, we do not print anything on function entrance and exit.
> ftrace() is for this.
Well, for debugging purposes, I'm going to have to dig into ftrace.
This is a great tip.
> >>
> >> Are you sure you run checkpatch on this? Error messages on debugfs
> >> are almost always incorrect.
> >
> > Yes, I have run checkpatch for patches.
> > Why the message is incorrect?
>
> Because debugfs failures should not cause any error prints. It's debug, not
> important.
>
> Do you see anywhere error messages?
>
> Entire debugfs handling code should be silent and even skip all error checking,
> as most API is ready for handling previous errors, I think.
Thanks, I understand now.
Thanks,
Stanley
Powered by blists - more mailing lists