From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com (Sergei Shtylyov) Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:10:29 +0300 Subject: [PATCH v6 5/6] i2c: at91: print hardware version In-Reply-To: <20150610080553.GO25800@odux.rfo.atmel.com> References: <5577428C.3090206@cogentembedded.com> <20150610080553.GO25800@odux.rfo.atmel.com> Message-ID: <55782935.30608@cogentembedded.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hello. On 6/10/2015 11:05 AM, Ludovic Desroches wrote: >>> The probe() function now prints the hardware version of the I2C >>> controller. >>> Signed-off-by: Cyrille Pitchen >>> --- >>> drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c | 5 ++++- >>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>> diff --git a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c >>> index 817ae69..6e88b30 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c >>> +++ b/drivers/i2c/busses/i2c-at91.c >> [...] >>> @@ -908,7 +910,8 @@ static int at91_twi_probe(struct platform_device *pdev) >>> return rc; >>> } >>> >>> - dev_info(dev->dev, "AT91 i2c bus driver.\n"); >>> + dev_info(dev->dev, "AT91 i2c bus driver (version: %#x).\n", >> It looks as if you rather print the driver's version. :-) > From my point of view, having a version number for a Linux driver would > be strange Not everybody shares your opinion. > so it's not confusing. Oh, it is, from the purely grammatical PoV. Addiung "hardware " to "version" (or not mentioning the driver at all) would clear up that confusion. >> >>> + at91_twi_read(dev, AT91_TWI_VER)); >>> return 0; >>> } >> WBR, Sergei > Regards > Ludovic WBR, Sergei