Re: [PATCH] of: Custom printk format specifier for device node

[Grant Likely]

On Tue, 31 Mar 2015 13:03:05 +0300
, Pantelis Antoniou <pantelis.antoniou@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
 wrote:
> > +Device tree nodes:
> > +
> > +	%pOn[fnpPcCFr]
> > +
> > +	For printing device tree nodes. The optional arguments are:
> > +	    f device node full_name
> > +	    n device node name
> > +	    p device node phandle
> > +	    P device node path spec (name + @unit)
> > +	    F device node flags
> > +	    c major compatible string
> > +	    C full compatible string
> > +	Without any arguments prints full_name (same as %pOnf)
> > +	The separator when using multiple arguments is â??:â??
> ^ separator is â??.'
> > +
> 
> > +	Examples:
> > +
> > +	%pOn	/foo/bar@0			- Node full name
> > +	%pOnf	/foo/bar@0			- Same as above
> > +	%pOnfp	/foo/bar@0:10			- Node full name + phandle
> > +	%pOnfcF	/foo/bar@0:foo,device:--P-	- Node full name +
> > +	                                          major compatible string +
> > +						  node flags
> > +							D - dynamic
> > +							d - detached
> > +							P - Populated
> > +							B - Populated bus
> > +

Thinking about this more, I'd like to suggest a different format that
gives us a nice hack on the name that makes it easy to remember:
	'%pOF[...]'
'O' still means 'object', but it is also overloaded for Open Firmware.
That still leaves %pO? for other object types.  What do you think?

g.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/