From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mga09.intel.com ([134.134.136.24]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1XYDOo-0004TL-C2 for linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org; Sun, 28 Sep 2014 12:16:22 +0000 Message-ID: <1411906556.11836.26.camel@karhu> Subject: Re: [PATCH] mtd: ubi: Extend UBI layer debug/messaging capabilities From: Artem Bityutskiy Reply-To: dedekind1@gmail.com To: Tanya Brokhman Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 15:15:56 +0300 In-Reply-To: <5427C5C4.40508@codeaurora.org> References: <1411886185-7838-1-git-send-email-tlinder@codeaurora.org> <5427C046.5030608@nod.at> <5427C5C4.40508@codeaurora.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Richard Weinberger , open list , linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, Brian Norris , David Woodhouse List-Id: Linux MTD discussion mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , On Sun, 2014-09-28 at 11:24 +0300, Tanya Brokhman wrote: > This is how I first implemented this patch. But then I cam across > some > ubi_err prints during the init process (in build.c ubi_init()) when > we > still don't have the ubi structure, so we need to pass some number to > the message. I overcame this by using UBI_MAX_DEVICES. Well, may be having two sets of wrappers would make sense then? Or if there are few of those, just using 'printk()' would be a solution? -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy