From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 14:09:49 +0200 Subject: [PATCH v2 3/6] vfio: platform: reset: calxedaxgmac: add reset function registration In-Reply-To: <5628CE82.7090105@linaro.org> References: <1445506922-6005-1-git-send-email-eric.auger@linaro.org> <4810974.apRDTjc3oB@wuerfel> <5628CE82.7090105@linaro.org> Message-ID: <43557523.izmYB5ybOS@wuerfel> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thursday 22 October 2015 13:54:42 Eric Auger wrote: > On 10/22/2015 12:13 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > > On Thursday 22 October 2015 11:41:59 Eric Auger wrote: > >> This patch adds the reset function registration/unregistration. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger > > > > Looks good, except one thing: > >> @@ -70,6 +69,8 @@ int vfio_platform_calxedaxgmac_reset(struct vfio_platform_device *vdev) > >> return -ENOMEM; > >> } > >> > >> + pr_info("VFIO reset of %s\n", vdev->name); > >> + > >> /* disable IRQ */ > >> writel(0, reg.ioaddr + XGMAC_DMA_INTR_ENA); > >> > > > > This probably slipped in from debugging, please remove it. > Well actually this is not an oversight but some unappropriate tracing > attempt I am afraid. I wanted to add a trace useful for the end-user to > make sure the VFIO reset function was called. Do you forbid that or do > recommend to use another tracing mechanism/level? In the past I tried > dynamic tracing but with module loading mechanism I found it not that handy. If you think it's useful to have in the long run, it should be a separate patch with a description what it's good for, rather than a side-effect of an unrelated patch. It just looked to me like it's something you do while debugging the reset code, rather than while using it. Implementation-wise, you should use dev_info() instead of pr_info() where possible, and it probably makes sense to put this into the vfio_platform driver before calling the reset function, for consistency between the drivers. Arnd