From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from e23smtp06.au.ibm.com (e23smtp06.au.ibm.com [202.81.31.148]) (using TLSv1 with cipher CAMELLIA256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E68EA1A03A6 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 20:36:54 +1100 (AEDT) Received: from localhost by e23smtp06.au.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 19:36:52 +1000 Received: from d23relay08.au.ibm.com (d23relay08.au.ibm.com [9.185.71.33]) by d23dlp01.au.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28D8A2CE8056 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 20:36:50 +1100 (EST) Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (d23av02.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.138]) by d23relay08.au.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id u1A9acrq45875346 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 20:36:46 +1100 Received: from d23av02.au.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d23av02.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id u1A9aHUg029896 for ; Wed, 10 Feb 2016 20:36:17 +1100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 From: Ian Munsie To: Frederic Barrat Cc: Michael Neuling , linuxppc-dev Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 12/18] cxl: Add guest-specific code In-reply-to: <1454765345-7417-13-git-send-email-fbarrat@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <1454765345-7417-1-git-send-email-fbarrat@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1454765345-7417-13-git-send-email-fbarrat@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 20:35:17 +1100 Message-Id: <1455095080-sup-4400@delenn.ozlabs.ibm.com> List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reiterating the comment I made on the internal review, I would at some point like to see an effort to refactor this and reduce the amount of duplicated code between it and the native version, but that can come later once this is in. Acked-by: Ian Munsie Excerpts from Frederic Barrat's message of 2016-02-07 00:28:59 +1100: > +static int read_vpd(struct cxl *adapter, struct cxl_afu *afu) ... > + buf = (u32 *) vpd; > + for (i = 0; i*4 < len; i += 4) { > + if ((i+3)*4 < len) > + pr_devel("%.8x %.8x %.8x %.8x\n", > + buf[i], buf[i + 1], buf[i + 2], buf[i + 3]); > + else if ((i+2)*4 < len) > + pr_devel("%.8x %.8x %.8x\n", > + buf[i], buf[i + 1], buf[i + 2]); > + else if ((i+1)*4 < len) > + pr_devel("%.8x %.8x\n", > + buf[i], buf[i + 1]); > + else > + pr_devel("%.8x\n", buf[i]); Similar overly verbose debug print out like the I commented on in the other patch.