Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] ACPI: Add acpi_pr_<level>() interfaces

[Bjorn Helgaas]

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 15:37 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>>     PNP0C01:00: new device for \_SB_.PCI0.ISA_.MBIO
>>
>> I fiddled with this a while ago; it would look something like this:
> []
>> +static noinline_for_stack
>> +char *acpi_name_string(char *buf, char *end, acpi_handle handle,
>> +                    struct printf_spec spec, const char *fmt)
>> +{
>> +     acpi_status status;
>> +     struct acpi_buffer buffer = { ACPI_ALLOCATE_BUFFER, NULL };
>> +     u32 type = ACPI_SINGLE_NAME;
>> +     char *p = buf;
>> +
>> +     if (fmt[0] == 'A')
>> +             type = ACPI_FULL_PATHNAME;
>
> maybe if (fmt[1] == 'f')
>
>> @@ -982,6 +1007,9 @@ char *pointer(const char *fmt, char *buf, char *end, void *ptr,
>>       }
>>
>>       switch (*fmt) {
>> +     case 'A':
>> +     case 'a':
>> +             return acpi_name_string(buf, end, ptr, spec, fmt);
>
> There are only so many letters, it might be better to
> just use 'a' and another 'f' after that if necessary
> for "full".
>
> And of course that should be #ifdef'd too

Yes.  I'm hesitant about this approach in general, because I don't
think printing the ACPI path is something we should be doing often.
It's not like a struct resource or a MAC address, where there are
dozens or hundreds of users.  I really think we should only print ACPI
paths in one or two places, so adding a %p extension would waste a
letter and encourage the wrong behavior.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/