Subject: Re: [RFC 4/4] [flexcan] Add support for FLEXCAN_DEBUG

From: Robin Holt <holt-sJ/[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 5 Aug 2011 09:01:10 -0500

On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 09:16:06AM +0200, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:
> On 08/05/2011 04:06 AM, Robin Holt wrote:
> > Add a wrapper function for a register dump when a developer defines
> > FLEXCAN_DEBUG
> 
> Comments inline..however I'm not sure if we need this patch.

I really do like the ability to dump the registers.  It has come in handy
a couple of times while bringing up the board.  I do not know how hard
I would push for them, but I do not see them as having much down side
and I do know they have proven useful for me.

At this point, I have interpretted both your's and Wolfgang's comment as
a suggestion.  I do not know how this group of developers works and if
I should be taking that suggestion as a dope-slap indicating I should
drop this right now because I am an idiot or if the patch just leaves
a bad taste in your mouth.  Would either or both of you please clarify.

> > +#if defined(FLEXCAN_DEBUG)
> > +void _flexcan_reg_dump(struct net_device *dev, const char *file, int line,
> > +		       const char *func)
> > +{
> > +	const struct flexcan_priv *priv = netdev_priv(dev);
> > +	struct flexcan_regs __iomem *regs = priv->base;
> > +
> > +	printk(KERN_INFO "flexcan_reg_dump:%s:%d:%s()\n", file, line, func);
> 
> Use netdev_$LEVEL, please.
> If you use dbg, you can remove the ifdef altogether.

I assume you mean netdev_dbg.  If that were the case, then setting
CONFIG_CAN_DEBUG_DEVICES would bring these printks back and that was
explicitly stated as undesirable.  Am I understanding this wrong?

If not, I am going to fall back to netdev_info instead and leave the
#ifdef FLEXCAN_DEBUG.  Will that work?

Thanks,
Robin