From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753078AbaHDRFN (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Aug 2014 13:05:13 -0400 Received: from outrelay08.libero.it ([212.52.84.112]:47671 "EHLO outrelay08.libero.it" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752417AbaHDRFJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Aug 2014 13:05:09 -0400 X-libjamoibt: 1823 Message-ID: <53DFBE8D.5050707@inwind.it> Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 19:10:37 +0200 From: Goffredo Baroncelli Reply-To: kreijack@inwind.it User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jean Delvare , Benjamin Herrenschmidt CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bryan@whatroute.net Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] Add the "verbose" module option. References: <1406901650-20841-1-git-send-email-kreijack@inwind.it> <1406901650-20841-4-git-send-email-kreijack@inwind.it> <20140803161223.0b26e4bc@endymion.delvare> <53DE5179.3080402@gmail.com> <20140803175222.3433b646@endymion.delvare> <53DE650E.4060909@gmail.com> <1407141986.4302.10.camel@chaos.site> In-Reply-To: <1407141986.4302.10.camel@chaos.site> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/04/2014 10:46 AM, Jean Delvare wrote: > Le Sunday 03 August 2014 à 18:36 +0200, Goffredo Baroncelli a écrit : >> On 08/03/2014 05:52 PM, Jean Delvare wrote: >>> On Sun, 03 Aug 2014 17:12:57 +0200, Goffredo Baroncelli wrote: >>>> On 08/03/2014 04:12 PM, Jean Delvare wrote: >>>>>> + (verbose > 0 && level >= 0)) { >>>>>> + print_temp("CPU-temp: ", temp ); >>>>>> + if (casetemp) >>>>>> + print_temp(", Case: ", casetemp ); >>>>>> + if (level >= 0) >>>>>> + printk(", Fan: %d (tuned %+d)\n", 11-level, >>>>>> + x.fan_level-level ); >>>>>> + else >>>>>> + printk(", Fan: %d (tuned +0)\n",x.fan_level); >>>>> >>>>> I think you can do without the "tuned +0" which doesn't add much value. >>>> >>>> Me too. But the old driver does the same, so I preferred to >>>> leave it as is. >>> >>> I looked at the code again and no, I can't see the old code doing that. >>> It has "tuned %+d" only in tune_fan() which is only called if >>> level >= 0. The other printk (when tune_fan isn't called) doesn't have >>> a "tuned" part. >> >> This is taken from an old log of a v3.2 kernel (no changes here): >> >> [ 886.510879] CPU-temp: 55.4 C, Case: 33.1 C, Fan: 0 (tuned -11) >> [ 910.522869] CPU-temp: 56.0 C, Case: 33.5 C, Fan: 0 (tuned +0) >> [ 958.546880] CPU-temp: 57.0 C, Case: 34.1 C, Fan: 3 (tuned +3) >> >> in the code if level <0, then there is no update in the log. But if >> level >0 and level is equal to the previous one, this leads to >> have "tuned +0"... > > I agree with that. > >> But I have to be honest: I have not fully understand how >> "level" is computed. > > I agree with that too :/ > >> The printk without "(tuned %+d)" is never called because >> LOG_TEMP was #define(d) equal to 0. > > And this is what your second printk is replacing. So it should not have > the "(tuned *)" either. > I removed the printk(s) from tune_fan(); the ones leaved replaced both the ones inside tune_fan() and the ones outside. Anyway, Benjamin which is your opinion ? For me is equal to remove or to leave "(tune +0)" (when the tuning is equal to 0). Jean think it is better to remove "(tune +0)" (when the tuning is equal to 0). So if you haven't any objection I will remove it. -- gpg @keyserver.linux.it: Goffredo Baroncelli (kreijackATinwind.it> Key fingerprint BBF5 1610 0B64 DAC6 5F7D 17B2 0EDA 9B37 8B82 E0B5