>On Thu, 2012-06-28 at 00:01 +0800, Gavin Shan wrote:
>> The patch adds more logs to EEH initialization functions for
>> debugging purpose. Also, the machine type ("pSeries") is checked
>> in the platform initialization to assure it's the correct platform
>> to invoke it.
>
>Hi Gavin,
>
>Our boot logs are full enough. pr_info() is not right for this sort of
>stuff.
>
>For debug use:
> * pr_debug() - which can be enabled dynamically.
> * pr_devel() - which needs to be built with #define DEBUG
> * printk(KERN_DEBUG) - for things you always want printed, but
>needn't go to the console by default.
>
Yes, Michael. I'll replace "pr_info" with "pr_debug" in next revision :-)
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/eeh_dev.c
>> b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/eeh_dev.c
>> index 8e3443b..a0cee3a 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/eeh_dev.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/eeh_dev.c
>> @@ -100,6 +100,8 @@ static int __init eeh_dev_phb_init(void)
>> list_for_each_entry_safe(phb, tmp, &hose_list, list_node)
>> eeh_dev_phb_init_dynamic(phb);
>>
>> +pr_info("EEH: devices created\n");
>
>That's not actually very informative.
>
Yep. Let me make it more informative in next revision.
>> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/eeh_pseries.c
>> b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/eeh_pseries.c
>> index bcf0bb8..bb2bd90 100644
>> --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/eeh_pseries.c
>> +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/eeh_pseries.c
>> @@ -561,7 +561,18 @@ static struct eeh_ops pseries_eeh_ops = {
>> */
>> static int __init eeh_pseries_init(void)
>> {
>> -return eeh_ops_register(&pseries_eeh_ops);
>> +int ret = -EINVAL;
>> +
>> +if (!machine_is(pseries))
>> +return ret;
>> +
>> +ret = eeh_ops_register(&pseries_eeh_ops);
>> +if (!ret)
>> +pr_info("EEH: pSeries platform initialized\n");
>> +else
>> +pr_info("EEH: pSeries platform initialization failure\n");
>> +
>> +return ret;
>> }
>>
>> early_initcall(eeh_pseries_init);
>
>You can achieve the same with initcall_debug.
>
>But if you want to keep it at least print the return code, that's the
>first thing you will want to know if it fails.
>
Thanks, Michael. Let me print "ret" for the failure case in next revision.
Also, I will replace "pr_info" with "pr_debug" as you suggested :-)
Thanks,
Gavin
>cheers
>
>
>
>___
>Linuxppc-dev mailing list
>Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
>https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
>
___
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
