Re: [PATCH] staging: sm750fb: Fix printk() style warning

[Edward Lipinsky]

On Fri, Oct 07, 2016 at 11:12:04AM +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 09:27:36PM -0700, Edward Lipinsky wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 08:13:01PM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 11:05:05AM -0700, Edward Lipinsky wrote:
> > > > This patch fixes the checkpatch.pl warning:
> > > > 
> > > > WARNING: printk() should include KERN_ facility level
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Edward Lipinsky <ellipinsky@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > >  drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_help.c | 2 +-
> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_help.c b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_help.c
> > > > index 9637dd3..e72a29c 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_help.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/sm750fb/ddk750_help.c
> > > > @@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ void ddk750_set_mmio(void __iomem *addr, unsigned short devId, char revId)
> > > >  	devId750 = devId;
> > > >  	revId750 = revId;
> > > >  	if (revId == 0xfe)
> > > > -		printk("found sm750le\n");
> > > > +		pr_info("found sm750le\n");
> > > 
> > > Why can't you use dev_info() here?
> > > 
> > > thanks,
> > > 
> > > greg k-h
> > 
> > It should work, but I'm not sure what should change in the header files to
> > do it--esp. to make the dev parameter available in ddk750_help.c.  (Only
> > sm750.c uses dev_ style logging now, the rest of the driver still uses pr_*.)
> 
> This printk can be moved to lynxfb_pci_probe, and then it should be no
> problem to use dev_info. Just make sure to update the commit message
> appropriately. 
>  
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Ed Lipinsky
> 
> --
> Sincerely yours,
> Mike.
> 

Thanks, that makes sense.  I tried deleting the if statement and printk()
from ddk750_help.c, and adding the following in lynxfb_pci_probe() after
calling hw_sm750_map() and checking for errors:

if (sm750_dev->revid == 0xfe)
	dev_info(&pdev->dev, "found sm750le\n");

The driver compiles, loads and unloads ok with this code.

Does this look correct?

Regards,
Ed L.