Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] staging: vc04_services: vchiq_core: Drop custom logging

[Stefan Wahren]

Hi Umang,

Am 18.01.23 um 12:58 schrieb Umang Jain:
> Drop custom logging from the vchiq_core.c and use standard kernel
> logging infrastructure (dev_dbg() and friends for struct Device
> stuff) and pr_info (and similar) for vchiq_services/instances things.
i'm sorry but your "staging: vc04_services: vchiq: Register devices with 
a custom bus_type" is still in my backlog. I was busy with some 
regressions on bcm2835/bcm2711.
> Signed-off-by: Umang Jain <umang.jain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>   .../interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_core.c          | 450 ++++++++----------
>   1 file changed, 204 insertions(+), 246 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_core.c b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_core.c
> index 4e705a447a62..7b3c57326d28 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/vc04_services/interface/vchiq_arm/vchiq_core.c
> @@ -227,10 +227,11 @@ static const char *msg_type_str(unsigned int msg_type)
>   static inline void
>   set_service_state(struct vchiq_service *service, int newstate)
>   {
> -	vchiq_log_info(vchiq_core_log_level, "%d: srv:%d %s->%s",
> -		       service->state->id, service->localport,
> -		       srvstate_names[service->srvstate],
> -		       srvstate_names[newstate]);
> +	struct vchiq_state *state = service->state;
> +
> +	dev_info(state->dev, "%d: srv:%d %s->%s", state->id,
> +		 service->localport, srvstate_names[service->srvstate],
> +		 srvstate_names[newstate]);
>   	service->srvstate = newstate;
>   }
>   
> @@ -255,8 +256,7 @@ find_service_by_handle(struct vchiq_instance *instance, unsigned int handle)
>   		return service;
>   	}
>   	rcu_read_unlock();
> -	vchiq_log_info(vchiq_core_log_level,
> -		       "Invalid service handle 0x%x", handle);
> +	pr_info("vchiq: Invalid service handle 0x%x", handle);

Some log levels like this here doesn't make sense. I would expect here a 
warning or an error. Could you please have look at it in a separate patch?

Thanks