From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D76ACC4740C for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 17:12:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABB502089F for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 17:12:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=ti.com header.i=@ti.com header.b="PR+Ffa7A" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2391414AbfIIRM5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Sep 2019 13:12:57 -0400 Received: from lelv0143.ext.ti.com ([198.47.23.248]:40692 "EHLO lelv0143.ext.ti.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2391274AbfIIRM5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Sep 2019 13:12:57 -0400 Received: from lelv0265.itg.ti.com ([10.180.67.224]) by lelv0143.ext.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id x89HCsgj003069; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 12:12:54 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ti.com; s=ti-com-17Q1; t=1568049174; bh=Qo7EHdIh7ZQkhD2ozFDd6uAbRhKY0yNrS7eb0wqVc2o=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=PR+Ffa7ASiwL02DtHXnWGBpKjzdQnFkiEc18lv8XLKf+a5k3tSbnAZ4ABYlSyOPvV A0q842KiyYzfW6Oia1K6pXMm5pFj3AS2hOXTxhLi6IVyHfgOYamA6cWqVKOHI4P4U+ BlESWLgtPdh4LhqBJo1QRw3yA1f3BjU7lTspVQYQ= Received: from DLEE108.ent.ti.com (dlee108.ent.ti.com [157.170.170.38]) by lelv0265.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x89HCsNS086186 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Mon, 9 Sep 2019 12:12:54 -0500 Received: from DLEE103.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.33) by DLEE108.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.38) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 12:12:54 -0500 Received: from fllv0039.itg.ti.com (10.64.41.19) by DLEE103.ent.ti.com (157.170.170.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.1713.5 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 12:12:53 -0500 Received: from ti.com (ileax41-snat.itg.ti.com [10.172.224.153]) by fllv0039.itg.ti.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with SMTP id x89HCsqq033234; Mon, 9 Sep 2019 12:12:54 -0500 Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2019 12:14:57 -0500 From: Benoit Parrot To: Joe Perches CC: Hans Verkuil , Prabhakar Lad , , , Subject: Re: [Patch 09/13] media: am437x-vpfe: fix function trace debug log Message-ID: <20190909171457.louslicqvyv4vpde@ti.com> References: <20190909162743.30114-1-bparrot@ti.com> <20190909162743.30114-10-bparrot@ti.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: NeoMutt/20171215 X-EXCLAIMER-MD-CONFIG: e1e8a2fd-e40a-4ac6-ac9b-f7e9cc9ee180 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Joe Perches wrote on Mon [2019-Sep-09 09:54:56 -0700]: > On Mon, 2019-09-09 at 11:27 -0500, Benoit Parrot wrote: > > checkpatch.pl nows reports several: > > WARNING: Prefer using '"%s...", __func__' to using '', > > this function's name, in a string > > > > So fix these for the whole driver. > > Most of these seem to be function tracing comments > that should probably be removed instead. > > The generic kernel facility ftrace works well. Yeah you are probably right, I should just remove them. My own laziness prevented me earlier... it's always easier to just enable debug dynamically in the driver then trying to remember how to use ftrace :) I obviously don't use often enough. Benoit > > > diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/am437x/am437x-vpfe.c b/drivers/media/platform/am437x/am437x-vpfe.c > [] > > @@ -466,7 +466,7 @@ static void vpfe_ccdc_config_ycbcr(struct vpfe_ccdc *ccdc) > > struct ccdc_params_ycbcr *params = &ccdc->ccdc_cfg.ycbcr; > > u32 syn_mode; > > > > - vpfe_dbg(3, vpfe, "vpfe_ccdc_config_ycbcr:\n"); > > + vpfe_dbg(3, vpfe, "%s:\n", __func__); > > Remove this instead > > > /* > > * first restore the CCDC registers to default values > > * This is important since we assume default values to be set in > > @@ -598,7 +598,7 @@ static void vpfe_ccdc_config_raw(struct vpfe_ccdc *ccdc) > > unsigned int syn_mode; > > unsigned int val; > > > > - vpfe_dbg(3, vpfe, "vpfe_ccdc_config_raw:\n"); > > + vpfe_dbg(3, vpfe, "%s:\n", __func__); > > here too, etc... > >