[lm-sensors] [PATCH] lis33: turn down the no IRQ message

[lm-sensors] [PATCH] lis33: turn down the no IRQ message

[Alan Cox]

From: Kalhan Trisal <kalhan.trisal@intel.com>

Turn down the no IRQ message - on some platforms that's a normal state of
affairs.

Signed-off-by: Kalhan Trisal <kalhan.trisal@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
---

 drivers/hwmon/lis3lv02d.c |    2 +-
 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)


diff --git a/drivers/hwmon/lis3lv02d.c b/drivers/hwmon/lis3lv02d.c
index 1b674b7..d805e8e 100644
--- a/drivers/hwmon/lis3lv02d.c
+++ b/drivers/hwmon/lis3lv02d.c
@@ -957,7 +957,7 @@ int lis3lv02d_init_device(struct lis3lv02d *dev)
 
 	/* bail if we did not get an IRQ from the bus layer */
 	if (!dev->irq) {
-		pr_err("No IRQ. Disabling /dev/freefall\n");
+		pr_debug("No IRQ. Disabling /dev/freefall\n");
 		goto out;
 	}
 


_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] lis33: turn down the no IRQ message

[Guenter Roeck]

On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 10:09:15AM -0500, Alan Cox wrote:
> From: Kalhan Trisal <kalhan.trisal@intel.com>
> 
> Turn down the no IRQ message - on some platforms that's a normal state of
> affairs.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kalhan Trisal <kalhan.trisal@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>

Wondering - pr_err was too strong, but maybe pr_info would make sense
to inform the user that /dev/freefall won't work. Otherwise we may get
support requests with people complaining about it, and we won't be able
to see the reason.

Thoughts ?

Guenter

_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] lis33: turn down the no IRQ message

[Guenter Roeck]

On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 11:05:54AM -0500, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 07:53:01 -0800
> Guenter Roeck <guenter.roeck@ericsson.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 10:09:15AM -0500, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > From: Kalhan Trisal <kalhan.trisal@intel.com>
> > > 
> > > Turn down the no IRQ message - on some platforms that's a normal state of
> > > affairs.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Kalhan Trisal <kalhan.trisal@intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
> > 
> > Wondering - pr_err was too strong, but maybe pr_info would make sense
> > to inform the user that /dev/freefall won't work. Otherwise we may get
> > support requests with people complaining about it, and we won't be able
> > to see the reason.
> > 
> > Thoughts ?
> 
> That or pass whether /dev/freefall is wanted in the platform data
> somewhere ?
> 
> Basically though if dev->irq is not set it means there is no IRQ, and
> that isn't neccessarily an error.
> 
Difference is developer knowledge (no irq) vs. user understanding. Sure, no irq 
implies no freefall, and that is not an error. However, the user won't know that,
and thus might appreciate a note.

Thanks,
Guenter

_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] lis33: turn down the no IRQ message

[Guenter Roeck]

On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 11:19:20AM -0500, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > Basically though if dev->irq is not set it means there is no IRQ, and
> > > that isn't neccessarily an error.
> > > 
> > Difference is developer knowledge (no irq) vs. user understanding. Sure, no irq 
> > implies no freefall, and that is not an error. However, the user won't know that,
> > and thus might appreciate a note.
> 
> Unfortunately what happens is the user of the case it's not an error gets
> a big scary message and panics thinking the device is broken.
> 
Hmm ... ok, I'll accept that, and redirect any resulting support cases to you ;).

Guenter

_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] lis33: turn down the no IRQ message

[Guenter Roeck]

On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 10:09:15AM -0500, Alan Cox wrote:
> From: Kalhan Trisal <kalhan.trisal@intel.com>
> 
> Turn down the no IRQ message - on some platforms that's a normal state of
> affairs.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Kalhan Trisal <kalhan.trisal@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>

Applied.

Thanks,
Guenter

_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] lis33: turn down the no IRQ message

[Éric Piel]

Op 25-01-11 16:09, Alan Cox schreef:
> From: Kalhan Trisal<kalhan.trisal@intel.com>
>
> Turn down the no IRQ message - on some platforms that's a normal state of
> affairs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Kalhan Trisal<kalhan.trisal@intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Alan Cox<alan@linux.intel.com>
With the updated subject, it's fine for me. Debug level sounds good as 
it's something you really care only when you are trying to debug a problem.

Acked-by: Éric Piel <eric.piel@tremplin-utc.net>

Thanks,
Eric

_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] lis33: turn down the no IRQ message

[Jean Delvare]

On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 07:53:01 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 10:09:15AM -0500, Alan Cox wrote:
> > From: Kalhan Trisal <kalhan.trisal@intel.com>
> > 
> > Turn down the no IRQ message - on some platforms that's a normal state of
> > affairs.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Kalhan Trisal <kalhan.trisal@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
> 
> Wondering - pr_err was too strong, but maybe pr_info would make sense
> to inform the user that /dev/freefall won't work. Otherwise we may get
> support requests with people complaining about it, and we won't be able
> to see the reason.
> 
> Thoughts ?

The comment says: "on some platforms that's a normal state of affairs".
So it's down to: can there be other reasons to the missing IRQ than
these platforms where we expect it? If not, then pr_debug() is right.
If there is, then we need separate messages for the expected and
unexpected cases.

-- 
Jean Delvare

_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] lis33: turn down the no IRQ message

[Guenter Roeck]

On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 11:25:08AM -0500, Éric Piel wrote:
> Op 25-01-11 16:09, Alan Cox schreef:
> > From: Kalhan Trisal<kalhan.trisal@intel.com>
> >
> > Turn down the no IRQ message - on some platforms that's a normal state of
> > affairs.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kalhan Trisal<kalhan.trisal@intel.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Alan Cox<alan@linux.intel.com>
> With the updated subject, it's fine for me. Debug level sounds good as 
> it's something you really care only when you are trying to debug a problem.
> 
> Acked-by: Éric Piel <eric.piel@tremplin-utc.net>
> 
Added.

Thanks,
Guenter

_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors

Re: [lm-sensors] [PATCH] lis33: turn down the no IRQ message

[Guenter Roeck]

On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 11:34:53AM -0500, Jean Delvare wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 07:53:01 -0800, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 10:09:15AM -0500, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > From: Kalhan Trisal <kalhan.trisal@intel.com>
> > > 
> > > Turn down the no IRQ message - on some platforms that's a normal state of
> > > affairs.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Kalhan Trisal <kalhan.trisal@intel.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
> > 
> > Wondering - pr_err was too strong, but maybe pr_info would make sense
> > to inform the user that /dev/freefall won't work. Otherwise we may get
> > support requests with people complaining about it, and we won't be able
> > to see the reason.
> > 
> > Thoughts ?
> 
> The comment says: "on some platforms that's a normal state of affairs".
> So it's down to: can there be other reasons to the missing IRQ than
> these platforms where we expect it? If not, then pr_debug() is right.
> If there is, then we need separate messages for the expected and
> unexpected cases.
> 
I don't think there can be other reasons, unless there is a bug somewhere,
which of course is always possible. Only reason for bringing it up was that
someone had complained about the missing /dev/freefall a couple of months ago.

Anyway, since Eric is fine with pr_debug, let's stick with it.

Guenter

_______________________________________________
lm-sensors mailing list
lm-sensors@lm-sensors.org
http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors