Re: [PATCHv2 3/4] dw_dmac: change {dev_}printk() to correspondingmacros

[Felipe Balbi]

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 04:36:58PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-10-17 at 16:09 +0300, Felipe Balbi wrote: 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 01:31:17PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/dma/dw_dmac.c |   15 ++++++---------
> > >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/drivers/dma/dw_dmac.c b/drivers/dma/dw_dmac.c
> > > index c27c125..60b172a 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/dma/dw_dmac.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/dma/dw_dmac.c
> > > @@ -456,9 +456,8 @@ static void dwc_scan_descriptors(struct dw_dma *dw, struct dw_dma_chan *dwc)
> > >  
> > >  static inline void dwc_dump_lli(struct dw_dma_chan *dwc, struct dw_lli *lli)
> > >  {
> > > -	dev_printk(KERN_CRIT, chan2dev(&dwc->chan),
> > > -			"  desc: s0x%x d0x%x l0x%x c0x%x:%x\n",
> > > -			lli->sar, lli->dar, lli->llp, lli->ctlhi, lli->ctllo);
> > > +	dev_crit(chan2dev(&dwc->chan), "  desc: s0x%x d0x%x l0x%x c0x%x:%x\n",
> > > +		 lli->sar, lli->dar, lli->llp, lli->ctlhi, lli->ctllo);
> > 
> > is this really critical ? To me it looks more like a debugging message.
> This one is used in two cases, where one is marked as "error", another -
> "critical"

fair enough

> > >  static void dwc_handle_error(struct dw_dma *dw, struct dw_dma_chan *dwc)
> > > @@ -492,10 +491,8 @@ static void dwc_handle_error(struct dw_dma *dw, struct dw_dma_chan *dwc)
> > >  	 * controller flagged an error instead of scribbling over
> > >  	 * random memory locations.
> > >  	 */
> > > -	dev_printk(KERN_CRIT, chan2dev(&dwc->chan),
> > > -			"Bad descriptor submitted for DMA!\n");
> > > -	dev_printk(KERN_CRIT, chan2dev(&dwc->chan),
> > > -			"  cookie: %d\n", bad_desc->txd.cookie);
> > > +	dev_crit(chan2dev(&dwc->chan), "Bad descriptor submitted for DMA!\n");
> > > +	dev_crit(chan2dev(&dwc->chan), "  cookie: %d\n", bad_desc->txd.cookie);
> > 
> > now this is critical, indeed. I would suggest using dev_WARN_ONCE() so
> > that it's noisy enough to catch the failing user.
> To this and upper comment, there is an explanation why it's critical. I
> guess the WARN_ONCE is not good enough, for example if we have more than
> one user making such noise.

then use dev_WARN()

-- 
balbi

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature