Re: [PATCH] staging: brcm80211: brcmfmac: Add and use dhd_dbg
From: Henry Ptasinski
Date: Wed May 18 2011 - 20:47:03 EST
On 05/18/2011 05:32 PM, Joe Perches wrote:
On Wed, 2011-05-18 at 15:45 -0700, Henry Ptasinski wrote:
On 05/18/2011 11:23 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
All uses of DHD_<TYPE> macros are for debugging only.
Change the multiple uses of DHD_<TYPE>((...)) to dhd_dbg(TYPE, ...)
for a more consistent style.
I generally like this approach, but in brcmsmac we've been switching to
wiphy_err() and related instead. Any strong argument for one over the
other?
These aren't described as errors but are debugging messages.
Yes, so wiphy_debug(), wiphy_info(), wiphy_notice(), etc could be used.
It's not as fine grained as the current logging mechanism, so that
would be one argument against using wiphy_*. I don't have a strong
opinion either way, just looking to see which is the generally preferred
approach in the kernel (if there is any preference).
- DHD_TRACE(("%s: Enter\n", __func__));
+ dhd_dbg(TRACE, "%s: Enter\n", __func__);
I'd propose moving __func__ into the macro definition itself, which
would help ensure consistency (and shorten all the debug lines a bit).
I think TRACE is unnecessary and can be eliminated
and replaced by the function tracer.
Not all uses use __func__.
That's just sloppiness on our part. They should all be consistent.
I think __func__ unnecessary and it should be avoided.
If it's moved into the macro, then there's only one place to change if
you want to delete "__func__"/add it back/include it conditionally.
Other than that, I've no objections.
Also, perhaps rename to "brcm_dbg()", "bcm_dbg()" or something like that
and move it into include/bcmutils.h, so brcmsmac can use it as well.
Your choice.
"brcm_dbg()" seems fine to me.
- Henry
--
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/