linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] tty: atmel_serial: print the controller version

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

Message-ID: <2024100851-macaroni-giggling-7826@gregkh>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2024 11:09:47 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Mihai.Sain@...rochip.com
Cc: richard.genoud@...tlin.com, jirislaby@...nel.org,
	Nicolas.Ferre@...rochip.com, alexandre.belloni@...tlin.com,
	claudiu.beznea@...on.dev, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-serial@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] tty: atmel_serial: print the controller version

On Tue, Oct 08, 2024 at 09:05:24AM +0000, Mihai.Sain@...rochip.com wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 08, 2024 at 11:34:59AM +0300, Mihai Sain wrote:
> > > Add support to print the controller version similar to other at91
> > > drivers like spi and twi.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Mihai Sain <mihai.sain@...rochip.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/tty/serial/atmel_serial.c | 2 ++
> > >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/tty/serial/atmel_serial.c
> > > b/drivers/tty/serial/atmel_serial.c
> > > index 09b246c9e389..5f93974918c0 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/tty/serial/atmel_serial.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/tty/serial/atmel_serial.c
> > > @@ -2970,6 +2970,8 @@ static int atmel_serial_probe(struct platform_device
> > *pdev)
> > >        */
> > >       clk_disable_unprepare(atmel_port->clk);
> > >
> > > +     dev_info(&pdev->dev, "AT91 USART Controller version %#x",
> > > +              atmel_uart_readl(&atmel_port->uart, ATMEL_US_VERSION));
> > 
> > No, the other drivers need to be fixed up, when drivers are working properly,
> > they are quiet.  This driver is correct by being quiet, please send patches for
> > the other ones to remove these types of lines.
> 
> Is it acceptable to use dev_dbg instead of dev_info ?

Sure, but why?  What user would ever need/want to turn that on?
dev_dbg() is for developers to help support things, a dbg call at probe
time is rare.

What would you do with such a message?

thanks,

greg k-h