Re: [patch/rfc 1/4] GPIO implementation framework

From: Jean Delvare <khali@linux-fr.org>
To: David Brownell <david-b@pacbell.net>
Cc: "eric miao" <eric.y.miao@gmail.com>,
	"Linux Kernel list" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Felipe Balbi" <felipebalbi@users.sourceforge.net>,
	"Bill Gatliff" <bgat@billgatliff.com>,
	"Haavard Skinnemoen" <hskinnemoen@atmel.com>,
	"Andrew Victor" <andrew@sanpeople.com>,
	"Tony Lindgren" <tony@atomide.com>,
	"Kevin Hilman" <khilman@mvista.com>,
	"Paul Mundt" <lethal@linux-sh.org>,
	"Ben Dooks" <ben@trinity.fluff.org>
Subject: Re: [patch/rfc 1/4] GPIO implementation framework
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2007 11:38:55 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20071117113855.7532e477@hyperion.delvare> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200711132036.14927.david-b@pacbell.net>

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 20:36:13 -0800, David Brownell wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 November 2007, eric miao wrote:
> >  	if (!requested)
> > -		printk(KERN_DEBUG "GPIO-%d autorequested\n",
> > -				chip->base + offset);
> > +		pr_debug("GPIO-%d autorequested\n", gpio);
> 
> Leave the printk in ... this is the sort of thing we want
> to see fixed, which becomes unlikely once you hide such
> diagnostics.  And for that matter, what would be enabling
> the "-DDEBUG" that would trigger a pr_debug() message?

The original code isn't correct either. Either this is a debug message
and indeed pr_debug() should be used, or it's not and KERN_DEBUG should
be replaced by a lower log level.

-- 
Jean Delvare