Re: [PATCH 19/25] pnp: if CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG, use pnp.ddebug instead of pnp.debug

[Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de>]

On Monday, December 05, 2011 06:42:42 AM Jim Cromie wrote:
> 2011/12/1 Thomas Renninger <trenn@suse.de>:
> > On Wednesday 30 November 2011 20:56:48 jim.cromie@gmail.com wrote:
> >> From: Jim Cromie <jim.cromie@gmail.com>
> >>
> >> resubmit of https://lkml.org/lkml/2010/9/15/398
> >>
> >> This allows usage of generic pnp.ddebug debug parameter instead of
> >> pnp.debug PNP specific parameter.
> 
> > It depends on what you compile in which pnp debug parameter one has to use
> > and both are doing more or less the same?
> >
> > We could add two pnp parameters in !defined(CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG) case:
> >  - deprecate pnp.debug by a message:
> >    "pnp.debug deprecated, use pnp.ddebug" instead
> 
> Just to be clear, this patch (yours) does this deprecation.
> 
> >  - pnp.ddebug doing what pnp.debug is doing currently
> 
> FWIW, the patch after this changes the name .ddebug to .dyndbg.
> 
> Why is this better than just fixing kernel-parameters to
> advise using dyndbg directly, and skipping the indirection ?
With this patch you'd have pnp.debug and pnp.dyndbg essentially doing
the same (from what I can see),
but you'd either have to use the one or the other, depending
on what is compiled in.

It's not a big deal, but imo it would be nice to have one pnp debug
option which would always work.

This could look like this (not even compile tested):

#if !defined(CONFIG_DYNAMIC_DEBUG)
static int __init pnp_debug_setup(char *__unused)
{
     pnp_debug = 1;
}
__setup("pnp.dyndbg", pnp_debug_setup);

static int __init pnp_old_debug_setup(char *__unused)
{
     printk(KERN_INFO "pnp.debug is deprecated, use pnp.dyndbg instead\n");
}
__setup("pnp.debug", pnp_old_debug_setup);
#endif


As said, not a big deal. Maybe nicer, not sure.

    Thomas