From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: dirk.behme@gmail.com (Dirk Behme)
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 17:43:23 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] drivers/perf: arm_pmu: make info messages more verbose
In-Reply-To: <1452586940-20137-1-git-send-email-dirk.behme@de.bosch.com>
References: <1452586940-20137-1-git-send-email-dirk.behme@de.bosch.com>
Message-ID: <56AF8B2B.6020705@gmail.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 12.01.2016 09:22, Dirk Behme wrote:
> On a big.LITTLE system e.g. with Cortex A57 and A53 in case not all cores
> are online at PMU probe time we might get
>
> hw perfevents: failed to probe PMU!
> hw perfevents: failed to register PMU devices!
>
> making it unclear which cores failed, here.
>
> Add the name of the PMU which failed resulting in a more verbose and
> helpful message
>
> hw perfevents: armv8_cortex_a53: failed to probe PMU!
> hw perfevents: armv8_cortex_a53: failed to register PMU devices!
>
> Signed-off-by: Dirk Behme <dirk.behme@de.bosch.com>
> ---
>   drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c | 4 ++--
>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c
> index be3755c..fc1f06f 100644
> --- a/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c
> +++ b/drivers/perf/arm_pmu.c
> @@ -904,7 +904,7 @@ int arm_pmu_device_probe(struct platform_device *pdev,
>   	}
>
>   	if (ret) {
> -		pr_info("failed to probe PMU!\n");
> +		pr_info("%s: failed to probe PMU!\n", pmu->name);
>   		goto out_free;
>   	}
>
> @@ -921,7 +921,7 @@ int arm_pmu_device_probe(struct platform_device *pdev,
>   out_destroy:
>   	cpu_pmu_destroy(pmu);
>   out_free:
> -	pr_info("failed to register PMU devices!\n");
> +	pr_info("%s: failed to register PMU devices!\n", pmu->name);
>   	kfree(pmu);
>   	return ret;
>   }


Any comments on this?

If not, how to get this applied?

Best regards

Dirk