Re: [PATCH RFC] regulator: suppress printk if there is no real info
On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 08:15:49PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 07:10:22PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > > > if (!buf[0]) > > > buf = "no parameters"; > > Yeah, having the log message for other regulators is helpful since > > things often go boom after you mess with power but not so useful for > > dummy. > That's a +1 for which approach? The above one which preserves the log message. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH RFC] regulator: suppress printk if there is no real info
On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 07:10:22PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 11:18:40AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > > > probably this really only applies to the dummy regulator. If not it > > might be more sensible to do: > > > if (!buf[0]) > > buf = "no parameters"; > > Yeah, having the log message for other regulators is helpful since > things often go boom after you mess with power but not so useful for > dummy. That's a +1 for which approach? > > or similar. Other than that I wonder if setting the devicename from > > "dummy" to say "regulator-dummy" would be an improvement, too. > > That'd work too. I'd like to combine it with one of the two suggested above. If you answer my question I can follow up with a patch. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König| Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH RFC] regulator: suppress printk if there is no real info
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 11:18:40AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: > probably this really only applies to the dummy regulator. If not it > might be more sensible to do: > if (!buf[0]) > buf = "no parameters"; Yeah, having the log message for other regulators is helpful since things often go boom after you mess with power but not so useful for dummy. > or similar. Other than that I wonder if setting the devicename from > "dummy" to say "regulator-dummy" would be an improvement, too. That'd work too. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH RFC] regulator: suppress printk if there is no real info
On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 11:18:40AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: probably this really only applies to the dummy regulator. If not it might be more sensible to do: if (!buf[0]) buf = no parameters; Yeah, having the log message for other regulators is helpful since things often go boom after you mess with power but not so useful for dummy. or similar. Other than that I wonder if setting the devicename from dummy to say regulator-dummy would be an improvement, too. That'd work too. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH RFC] regulator: suppress printk if there is no real info
On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 07:10:22PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: On Mon, Aug 06, 2012 at 11:18:40AM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: probably this really only applies to the dummy regulator. If not it might be more sensible to do: if (!buf[0]) buf = no parameters; Yeah, having the log message for other regulators is helpful since things often go boom after you mess with power but not so useful for dummy. That's a +1 for which approach? or similar. Other than that I wonder if setting the devicename from dummy to say regulator-dummy would be an improvement, too. That'd work too. I'd like to combine it with one of the two suggested above. If you answer my question I can follow up with a patch. Best regards Uwe -- Pengutronix e.K. | Uwe Kleine-König| Industrial Linux Solutions | http://www.pengutronix.de/ | -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: [PATCH RFC] regulator: suppress printk if there is no real info
On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 08:15:49PM +0200, Uwe Kleine-König wrote: On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 07:10:22PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: if (!buf[0]) buf = no parameters; Yeah, having the log message for other regulators is helpful since things often go boom after you mess with power but not so useful for dummy. That's a +1 for which approach? The above one which preserves the log message. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[PATCH RFC] regulator: suppress printk if there is no real info
This prevents the output of just dummy: in the boot log. Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König --- Hello, probably this really only applies to the dummy regulator. If not it might be more sensible to do: if (!buf[0]) buf = "no parameters"; or similar. Other than that I wonder if setting the devicename from "dummy" to say "regulator-dummy" would be an improvement, too. Best regards Uwe drivers/regulator/core.c |3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/regulator/core.c b/drivers/regulator/core.c index 8b4b382..9275259 100644 --- a/drivers/regulator/core.c +++ b/drivers/regulator/core.c @@ -808,7 +808,8 @@ static void print_constraints(struct regulator_dev *rdev) if (constraints->valid_modes_mask & REGULATOR_MODE_STANDBY) count += sprintf(buf + count, "standby"); - rdev_info(rdev, "%s\n", buf); + if (buf[0]) + rdev_info(rdev, "%s\n", buf); if ((constraints->min_uV != constraints->max_uV) && !(constraints->valid_ops_mask & REGULATOR_CHANGE_VOLTAGE)) -- 1.7.10.4 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[PATCH RFC] regulator: suppress printk if there is no real info
This prevents the output of just dummy: in the boot log. Signed-off-by: Uwe Kleine-König u.kleine-koe...@pengutronix.de --- Hello, probably this really only applies to the dummy regulator. If not it might be more sensible to do: if (!buf[0]) buf = no parameters; or similar. Other than that I wonder if setting the devicename from dummy to say regulator-dummy would be an improvement, too. Best regards Uwe drivers/regulator/core.c |3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/regulator/core.c b/drivers/regulator/core.c index 8b4b382..9275259 100644 --- a/drivers/regulator/core.c +++ b/drivers/regulator/core.c @@ -808,7 +808,8 @@ static void print_constraints(struct regulator_dev *rdev) if (constraints-valid_modes_mask REGULATOR_MODE_STANDBY) count += sprintf(buf + count, standby); - rdev_info(rdev, %s\n, buf); + if (buf[0]) + rdev_info(rdev, %s\n, buf); if ((constraints-min_uV != constraints-max_uV) !(constraints-valid_ops_mask REGULATOR_CHANGE_VOLTAGE)) -- 1.7.10.4 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
