Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 18 Jan 2023 18:29:23 +0100 | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] staging: vc04_services: vchiq_core: Drop custom logging | From | Stefan Wahren <> |
| |
Hi Umang,
Am 18.01.23 um 12:58 schrieb Umang Jain: > Drop custom logging from the vchiq_core.c and use standard kernel > logging infrastructure (dev_dbg() and friends for struct Device > stuff) and pr_info (and similar) for vchiq_services/instances things. i'm sorry but your "staging: vc04_services: vchiq: Register devices with a custom bus_type" is still in my backlog. I was busy with some regressions on bcm2835/bcm2711. > > Signed-off-by: Umang Jain <umang.jain@ideasonboard.com> > --- > .../interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_core.c | 450 ++++++++---------- > 1 file changed, 204 insertions(+), 246 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_core.c b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_core.c > index 4e705a447a62..7b3c57326d28 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_core.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_core.c > @@ -227,10 +227,11 @@ static const char *msg_type_str(unsigned int msg_type) > static inline void > set_service_state(struct vchiq_service *service, int newstate) > { > - vchiq_log_info(vchiq_core_log_level, "%d: srv:%d %s->%s", > - service->state->id, service->localport, > - srvstate_names[service->srvstate], > - srvstate_names[newstate]); > + struct vchiq_state *state = service->state; > + > + dev_info(state->dev, "%d: srv:%d %s->%s", state->id, > + service->localport, srvstate_names[service->srvstate], > + srvstate_names[newstate]); > service->srvstate = newstate; > } > > @@ -255,8 +256,7 @@ find_service_by_handle(struct vchiq_instance *instance, unsigned int handle) > return service; > } > rcu_read_unlock(); > - vchiq_log_info(vchiq_core_log_level, > - "Invalid service handle 0x%x", handle); > + pr_info("vchiq: Invalid service handle 0x%x", handle);
Some log levels like this here doesn't make sense. I would expect here a warning or an error. Could you please have look at it in a separate patch?
Thanks
| |