Previously a new line is implicitly added in the no GSI case:
[ 7.185182] pci 0001:00:12.0: can't derive routing for PCI INT A
[ 7.191352] pci 0001:00:12.0: PCI INT A: no GSI
[ 7.195956] - using ISA IRQ 10
The code thus prints a blank line where no legacy IRQ is available:
[ 1.650124] pci 0000:00:14.0: can't derive routing for PCI INT A
[ 1.650126] pci 0000:00:14.0: PCI INT A: no GSI
[ 1.650126]
[ 1.650180] pci 0000:00:14.0: can't derive routing for PCI INT A
Fix this by making the newline explicit and removing the superfluous
one.
Signed-off-by: Daniel J Blueman <[email protected]>
---
drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c | 8 +++-----
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
index 0eefa12..2c37996 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
@@ -459,7 +459,7 @@ int acpi_pci_irq_enable(struct pci_dev *dev)
*/
if (gsi < 0) {
u32 dev_gsi;
- dev_warn(&dev->dev, "PCI INT %c: no GSI", pin_name(pin));
+ dev_warn(&dev->dev, "PCI INT %c: no GSI\n", pin_name(pin));
/* Interrupt Line values above 0xF are forbidden */
if (dev->irq > 0 && (dev->irq <= 0xF) &&
(acpi_isa_irq_to_gsi(dev->irq, &dev_gsi) == 0)) {
@@ -467,11 +467,9 @@ int acpi_pci_irq_enable(struct pci_dev *dev)
acpi_register_gsi(&dev->dev, dev_gsi,
ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE,
ACPI_ACTIVE_LOW);
- return 0;
- } else {
- printk("\n");
- return 0;
}
+
+ return 0;
}
rc = acpi_register_gsi(&dev->dev, gsi, triggering, polarity);
--
1.7.9.5
On Wed, 2012-11-21 at 16:43 +0800, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> Previously a new line is implicitly added in the no GSI case:
>
> [ 7.185182] pci 0001:00:12.0: can't derive routing for PCI INT A
> [ 7.191352] pci 0001:00:12.0: PCI INT A: no GSI
> [ 7.195956] - using ISA IRQ 10
>
> The code thus prints a blank line where no legacy IRQ is available:
>
> [ 1.650124] pci 0000:00:14.0: can't derive routing for PCI INT A
> [ 1.650126] pci 0000:00:14.0: PCI INT A: no GSI
> [ 1.650126]
> [ 1.650180] pci 0000:00:14.0: can't derive routing for PCI INT A
>
> Fix this by making the newline explicit and removing the superfluous
> one.
This breaks the logging code below it when there is an ISA irq.
The below works, but is a workaround for a defect in the printk
subsystem introduced by a logging change that will be fixed in
a near future release.
Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <[email protected]>
---
drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c | 10 +++++-----
1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
index f288e00..68a921d 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
@@ -458,19 +458,19 @@ int acpi_pci_irq_enable(struct pci_dev *dev)
*/
if (gsi < 0) {
u32 dev_gsi;
- dev_warn(&dev->dev, "PCI INT %c: no GSI", pin_name(pin));
/* Interrupt Line values above 0xF are forbidden */
if (dev->irq > 0 && (dev->irq <= 0xF) &&
(acpi_isa_irq_to_gsi(dev->irq, &dev_gsi) == 0)) {
- printk(" - using ISA IRQ %d\n", dev->irq);
+ dev_warn(&dev->dev, "PCI INT %c: no GSI - using ISA IRQ %d\n",
+ pin_name(pin), dev->irq);
acpi_register_gsi(&dev->dev, dev_gsi,
ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE,
ACPI_ACTIVE_LOW);
- return 0;
} else {
- printk("\n");
- return 0;
+ dev_warn(&dev->dev, "PCI INT %c: no GSI\n",
+ pin_name(pin));
}
+ return 0;
}
rc = acpi_register_gsi(&dev->dev, gsi, triggering, polarity);
On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 05:46:04 AM Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-11-21 at 16:43 +0800, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> > Previously a new line is implicitly added in the no GSI case:
> >
> > [ 7.185182] pci 0001:00:12.0: can't derive routing for PCI INT A
> > [ 7.191352] pci 0001:00:12.0: PCI INT A: no GSI
> > [ 7.195956] - using ISA IRQ 10
> >
> > The code thus prints a blank line where no legacy IRQ is available:
> >
> > [ 1.650124] pci 0000:00:14.0: can't derive routing for PCI INT A
> > [ 1.650126] pci 0000:00:14.0: PCI INT A: no GSI
> > [ 1.650126]
> > [ 1.650180] pci 0000:00:14.0: can't derive routing for PCI INT A
> >
> > Fix this by making the newline explicit and removing the superfluous
> > one.
>
> This breaks the logging code below it when there is an ISA irq.
>
> The below works, but is a workaround for a defect in the printk
> subsystem introduced by a logging change that will be fixed in
> a near future release.
What exactly do you mean by "near future"?
Rafael
> Signed-off-by: Joe Perches <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c | 10 +++++-----
> 1 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
> index f288e00..68a921d 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
> @@ -458,19 +458,19 @@ int acpi_pci_irq_enable(struct pci_dev *dev)
> */
> if (gsi < 0) {
> u32 dev_gsi;
> - dev_warn(&dev->dev, "PCI INT %c: no GSI", pin_name(pin));
> /* Interrupt Line values above 0xF are forbidden */
> if (dev->irq > 0 && (dev->irq <= 0xF) &&
> (acpi_isa_irq_to_gsi(dev->irq, &dev_gsi) == 0)) {
> - printk(" - using ISA IRQ %d\n", dev->irq);
> + dev_warn(&dev->dev, "PCI INT %c: no GSI - using ISA IRQ %d\n",
> + pin_name(pin), dev->irq);
> acpi_register_gsi(&dev->dev, dev_gsi,
> ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE,
> ACPI_ACTIVE_LOW);
> - return 0;
> } else {
> - printk("\n");
> - return 0;
> + dev_warn(&dev->dev, "PCI INT %c: no GSI\n",
> + pin_name(pin));
> }
> + return 0;
> }
>
> rc = acpi_register_gsi(&dev->dev, gsi, triggering, polarity);
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
> the body of a message to [email protected]
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
On Wed, 2012-11-21 at 21:50 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 05:46:04 AM Joe Perches wrote:
> > On Wed, 2012-11-21 at 16:43 +0800, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> > > Previously a new line is implicitly added in the no GSI case:
> > >
> > > [ 7.185182] pci 0001:00:12.0: can't derive routing for PCI INT A
> > > [ 7.191352] pci 0001:00:12.0: PCI INT A: no GSI
> > > [ 7.195956] - using ISA IRQ 10
> > >
> > > The code thus prints a blank line where no legacy IRQ is available:
> > >
> > > [ 1.650124] pci 0000:00:14.0: can't derive routing for PCI INT A
> > > [ 1.650126] pci 0000:00:14.0: PCI INT A: no GSI
> > > [ 1.650126]
> > > [ 1.650180] pci 0000:00:14.0: can't derive routing for PCI INT A
> > >
> > > Fix this by making the newline explicit and removing the superfluous
> > > one.
> >
> > This breaks the logging code below it when there is an ISA irq.
> >
> > The below works, but is a workaround for a defect in the printk
> > subsystem introduced by a logging change that will be fixed in
> > a near future release.
>
> What exactly do you mean by "near future"?
I mean Jan Sch?nherr's patches that should fix this are
likely to be picked up one day.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/13/678
On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:53:55 PM Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-11-21 at 21:50 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 05:46:04 AM Joe Perches wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2012-11-21 at 16:43 +0800, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> > > > Previously a new line is implicitly added in the no GSI case:
> > > >
> > > > [ 7.185182] pci 0001:00:12.0: can't derive routing for PCI INT A
> > > > [ 7.191352] pci 0001:00:12.0: PCI INT A: no GSI
> > > > [ 7.195956] - using ISA IRQ 10
> > > >
> > > > The code thus prints a blank line where no legacy IRQ is available:
> > > >
> > > > [ 1.650124] pci 0000:00:14.0: can't derive routing for PCI INT A
> > > > [ 1.650126] pci 0000:00:14.0: PCI INT A: no GSI
> > > > [ 1.650126]
> > > > [ 1.650180] pci 0000:00:14.0: can't derive routing for PCI INT A
> > > >
> > > > Fix this by making the newline explicit and removing the superfluous
> > > > one.
> > >
> > > This breaks the logging code below it when there is an ISA irq.
> > >
> > > The below works, but is a workaround for a defect in the printk
> > > subsystem introduced by a logging change that will be fixed in
> > > a near future release.
> >
> > What exactly do you mean by "near future"?
>
> I mean Jan Schönherr's patches that should fix this are
> likely to be picked up one day.
>
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/13/678
Till then, we need the patch you sent, right? And it won't hurt to apply it
anyway?
Rafael
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 01:24:59 PM Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-11-21 at 22:25 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:53:55 PM Joe Perches wrote:
> > > I mean Jan Schönherr's patches that should fix this are
> > > likely to be picked up one day.
> > >
> > > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/13/678
> >
> > Till then, we need the patch you sent, right? And it won't hurt to apply it
> > anyway?
>
> If it's a real problem for someone, I guess so.
> It shouldn't hurt anything.
So I've applied it.
Thanks,
Rafael
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
On Wed, 2012-11-21 at 22:25 +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 21, 2012 12:53:55 PM Joe Perches wrote:
> > I mean Jan Sch?nherr's patches that should fix this are
> > likely to be picked up one day.
> >
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/13/678
>
> Till then, we need the patch you sent, right? And it won't hurt to apply it
> anyway?
If it's a real problem for someone, I guess so.
It shouldn't hurt anything.