From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.nokia.com ([192.100.122.230] helo=mgw-mx03.nokia.com) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.69 #1 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1N0DUE-0003DM-Bw for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:06:51 +0000 Subject: Re: NAND: Add flags to the probe calls to control scan behaviour From: Artem Bityutskiy To: Ben Dooks In-Reply-To: <4ADC4137.1060204@simtec.co.uk> References: <20091013090019.091262272@fluff.org.uk> <1255534646.32489.169.camel@localhost> <4ADC4137.1060204@simtec.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:06:35 +0300 Message-Id: <1256040395.29856.228.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, Simtec Linux Team Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Mon, 2009-10-19 at 11:36 +0100, Ben Dooks wrote: > I'd rather it be silent if it cannot find a device, as a number of our boards > have slots where NAND devices may be fitted by the customer and as such all > possibilities are registered with the NAND driver. > > > Could you please elaborate why more why is this needed a bit more? What > > is the driver? > > Because customers get scared when errors with '!!!' turn up. > > Why not to just remove that print at all? > > Possible, but what about the case where there is a legitimate problem with > the device that is supposed to be there. I would go for this instead. I think the drivers can print an error message themselves. Or can this be done using the chip->options ? -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)