Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | Frans Pop <> | Subject | [PATCH] e1000e: Avoid duplicated output of device name in kernel warning | Date | Mon, 25 Aug 2008 20:02:46 +0200 |
| |
On Monday 18 August 2008, Frans Pop wrote: > With 2.6.27-rc3 I noticed the following messages in my boot log: > 0000:01:00.0: 0000:01:00.0: Warning: detected DSPD enabled in EEPROM > 0000:01:00.0: eth0: (PCI Express:2.5GB/s:Width x1) 00:16:76:04:ff:09 > > The second seems correct, but the first has a silly repetition of the > PCI device before the actual message. The message originates from > e1000_eeprom_checks in e1000e/netdev.c.
With the patch below the first message becomes e1000e 0000:01:00.0: Warning: detected DSPD enabled in EEPROM which makes it similar to directly preceding messages.
> Other question is why this is a "Warning"? Isn't "Deep Smart Power > Down" a desirable feature to have?
I'm still wondering about this... Same goes for the "warning" about ASPM.
--- From: Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl>
Use dev_warn instead of e_warn in e1000_eeprom_checks() as the interface name has not yet been assigned at that point. Signed-off-by: Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl>
diff --git a/drivers/net/e1000e/netdev.c b/drivers/net/e1000e/netdev.c index d266510..d02a659 100644 --- a/drivers/net/e1000e/netdev.c +++ b/drivers/net/e1000e/netdev.c @@ -4335,13 +4335,15 @@ static void e1000_eeprom_checks(struct e1000_adapter *adapter) ret_val = e1000_read_nvm(hw, NVM_INIT_CONTROL2_REG, 1, &buf); if (!(le16_to_cpu(buf) & (1 << 0))) { /* Deep Smart Power Down (DSPD) */ - e_warn("Warning: detected DSPD enabled in EEPROM\n"); + dev_warn(&adapter->pdev->dev, + "Warning: detected DSPD enabled in EEPROM\n"); } ret_val = e1000_read_nvm(hw, NVM_INIT_3GIO_3, 1, &buf); if (le16_to_cpu(buf) & (3 << 2)) { /* ASPM enable */ - e_warn("Warning: detected ASPM enabled in EEPROM\n"); + dev_warn(&adapter->pdev->dev, + "Warning: detected ASPM enabled in EEPROM\n"); } }
| |