Subject: Re: [PATCH] bcm43xx: fix unexpected LED control values in BCM4303 sprom

From: "John W. Linville" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 08:12:53 -0500

On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 10:34:20PM -0600, Larry Finger wrote:
> John W. Linville wrote:
> >On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 04:37:08PM +0200, Michael Buesch wrote:
> >
> >>>@@ -257,7 +263,11 @@ void bcm43xx_leds_update(struct bcm43xx_
> >>> 			continue;
> >>> #endif /* CONFIG_BCM43XX_DEBUG */
> >>> 		default:
> >>>-			assert(0);
> >>>+			if (bcm43xx_max_led_err) {
> >>>+				printkl(KERN_INFO PFX "Bad value in 
> >>>leds_update,"
> >>>+					" led->behaviour: 0x%x\n", 
> >>>led->behaviour);
> >>>+				--bcm43xx_max_led_err;
> >>>+			}
> >>I'd call this message bloat. ;) This is the first time the assertion
> >>triggers since it was added.
> >>You could instead remove the assert(), remove bcm43xx_max_led_err
> >>and use dprintkl instead of printkl.
> 
> I disagree with part of Michael's comments. I think we should have a 
> dprintk, rather than dprintkl, so that we get printouts from all four of 
> the sprom values. That way the user will be able to report the numbers we 
> need. As this would not limit the log entries and potentially generate 
> thousands, there should be a variable like bcm43xx_max_led_err to limit the 
> number of log entries.
> 
> I will propose a new patch once I get the data for the second case. In the 
> meantime, the patch you have pushed upstream will fix the BCM4303 led 
> assertions.

OK, cool.  I'm happy for you to send another patch.

John
-- 
John W. Linville
[email-masked]