From: Mark Brown <broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To: Joe Perches <joe@perches.com>
Cc: Clemens Ladisch <clemens@ladisch.de>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Jason Baron <jbaron@redhat.com>,
Jim Cromie <jim.cromie@gmail.com>, Liam Girdwood <lrg@ti.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] Remove most all #define pr_fmt(fmt) lines
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:33:55 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120328163354.GA3232@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1332951765.16535.38.camel@joe2Laptop>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2136 bytes --]
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 09:22:45AM -0700, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 10:46 +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
Please at least leave the blank lines others put in their mails when
quoting even if you don't add any between paragraphs yourself, it really
makes things much more legible.
> > > > Instead of doing a Makefile change that has no _obvious_ connection with
> > > > printk, wouldn't it be better to just define pr_fmt with "regulator: "?
> > This seems like a much better idea if we're going to do anything; it
> > means that we don't end up embedding module names in things (which are
> > after all a bit of an implementation detail) and get to pick the name so
> > we can do something like get the prefix which is used for the symbols in
> > the code even if things are split over multiple modules.
> A negative is that requires #defines in multiple
> source files or rearranging #includes to centralize
> that #define.
You only need to do this in cases where the module name isn't a good
choice which hopefully should be relatively rare, and I'd expect a lot
of the time things will be in one source file anyway (as with the
regulator case).
> A negative of the Makefile approach is the name is
> obscurely chosen. A positive is it's only chosen
> once.
I don't think this is an either/or thing - you can default to using the
module name and override it where needed which like I say should
hopefully be relatively rare (though the sound tree will probably need
to do this pretty much everywhere due to the naming convention it uses).
> > In the case above we don't support modular build in the first place.
> Unrelated but is there any particular reason why
> the regulator core code couldn't be build as a
> module?
It's not worth bothering, it's needed spectacularly early on in most
practical systems (including by board files that are always built in as
bits of them run prior to I/O mappings and whatnot being set up). The
main practical result would be lots more hassle with dependencies in
Kconfig so the randconfig folks can do their stuff and no change in
actual configurations that people deploy.
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-03-28 16:33 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-03-27 17:23 [RFC] Remove most all #define pr_fmt(fmt) lines Joe Perches
2012-03-28 7:27 ` Clemens Ladisch
2012-03-28 7:30 ` Joe Perches
2012-03-28 9:46 ` Mark Brown
2012-03-28 16:22 ` Joe Perches
2012-03-28 16:33 ` Mark Brown [this message]
2012-03-28 7:42 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2012-03-28 8:03 ` Joe Perches
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120328163354.GA3232@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--to=broonie@opensource.wolfsonmicro.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=clemens@ladisch.de \
--cc=jbaron@redhat.com \
--cc=jim.cromie@gmail.com \
--cc=joe@perches.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lrg@ti.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox