IOMMU upper layer is already printing error message. OMAP2+ specific
layer may print error message only for debug purpose.
Signed-off-by: David Cohen daco...@gmail.com
---
arch/arm/mach-omap2/iommu2.c |6 +++---
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git
Hello.
On 15-02-2011 16:20, David Cohen wrote:
IOMMU upper layer is already printing error message. OMAP2+ specific
layer may print error message only for debug purpose.
Signed-off-by: David Cohendaco...@gmail.com
---
arch/arm/mach-omap2/iommu2.c |6 +++---
1 files changed, 3
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 3:38 PM, Sergei Shtylyov sshtyl...@mvista.com wrote:
Hello.
Hi,
On 15-02-2011 16:20, David Cohen wrote:
IOMMU upper layer is already printing error message. OMAP2+ specific
layer may print error message only for debug purpose.
Signed-off-by: David
On 15-02-2011 16:44, David Cohen wrote:
IOMMU upper layer is already printing error message. OMAP2+ specific
layer may print error message only for debug purpose.
Signed-off-by: David Cohendaco...@gmail.com
---
arch/arm/mach-omap2/iommu2.c |6 +++---
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+),
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 15:44:27 +0200
David Cohen daco...@gmail.com wrote:
@@ -163,13 +163,13 @@ static u32 omap2_iommu_fault_isr(struct iommu *obj,
u32 *ra)
da = iommu_read_reg(obj, MMU_FAULT_AD);
*ra = da;
- dev_err(obj-dev, %s:\tda:%08x , __func__, da);
+
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 3:56 PM, Sergei Shtylyov sshtyl...@mvista.com wrote:
On 15-02-2011 16:44, David Cohen wrote:
IOMMU upper layer is already printing error message. OMAP2+ specific
layer may print error message only for debug purpose.
Signed-off-by: David Cohendaco...@gmail.com
---
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Jarkko Nikula jhnik...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 15:44:27 +0200
David Cohen daco...@gmail.com wrote:
@@ -163,13 +163,13 @@ static u32 omap2_iommu_fault_isr(struct iommu *obj,
u32 *ra)
da = iommu_read_reg(obj, MMU_FAULT_AD);
*ra =
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 04:38:32PM +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/iommu2.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/iommu2.c
index 14ee686..4244a07 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/iommu2.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/iommu2.c
@@ -163,13 +163,13 @@ static u32
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 16:08:32 +0200
David Cohen daco...@gmail.com wrote:
So it's sure that a developer won't need these error dumps when
receiving an error report? I.e. IOMMU upper level errors give enough
information to start doing own debugging?
Yes, developers do need this information.
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 04:38:32PM +0300, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/iommu2.c b/arch/arm/mach-omap2/iommu2.c
index 14ee686..4244a07 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-omap2/iommu2.c
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 4:08 PM, David Cohen daco...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Jarkko Nikula jhnik...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 15:44:27 +0200
David Cohen daco...@gmail.com wrote:
@@ -163,13 +163,13 @@ static u32 omap2_iommu_fault_isr(struct iommu *obj,
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 04:36:26PM +0200, David Cohen wrote:
But pr_cont() would be wrong in case of DEBUG isn't set, isn't it?
Yes. One other solution you could do is:
char buf[80], *p = buf;
buf[0] = '\0';
for (i = 0; i ARRAY_SIZE(err_msg); i++)
if
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
li...@arm.linux.org.uk wrote:
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 04:36:26PM +0200, David Cohen wrote:
But pr_cont() would be wrong in case of DEBUG isn't set, isn't it?
Yes. One other solution you could do is:
char buf[80], *p = buf;
On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 04:50:29PM +0200, David Cohen wrote:
That could be my choice.
I'm not planing to resend this patch, but how good/bad it sounds to
you to have dev_dbg_cont() for such situation?
That doesn't help when the message gets corrupted by another thread,
so I'd much prefer the
14 matches
Mail list logo
