Re: [PATCH 1/4] PCI: pciehp: Clean up debug logging

[Rajat Jain]

On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Rajat Jain <rajatja@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 9:12 AM, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> The pciehp debug logging is overly verbose and often redundant.  Almost all
>>> of the information printed by dbg_ctrl() is also printed by the normal PCI
>>> core enumeration code and by pcie_init().
>>>
>>> Remove the redundant debug info.
>>>
>>> When claiming a pciehp bridge, we print the slot characteristics, e.g.,
>>>
>>>   Slot #6 AttnBtn- AttnInd- PwrInd- PwrCtrl- MRL- Interlock- NoCompl+ LLActRep+
>>>
>>> Add the Hot-Plug Capable and Hot-Plug Surprise bits to this information,
>>
>> If the slot is not hotplug capable. then pciehp wouldn't claim it in
>> the first place.
>>
>> So printing of "hotplug capable" may really not be needed..
>
> Yes, I did think about that, and you're right that it probably isn't
> needed.  But the criteria for claiming a slot and deciding whether
> acpiphp or pciehp should manage it are not 100% clear yet, so I
> figured it wouldn't hurt to be a bit more transparent.

Sounds right.

Reviewed-by : Rajat Jain <rajatja@xxxxxxxxxx>

Side note: To clarify when and why the slot was claimed by pciehp or
acpihp, do you think we need some mumbling / logging in
acpi_pci_detect_ejectable() or pciehp_acpi_slot_detection_check()?


>
> Bjorn
--
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/