When users see these printed to the console, they think
something is wrong. As it's just informational and something
that only developers care about, lower the printk level.
Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <[email protected]>
--- linux-2.6.15.noarch/drivers/base/driver.c~ 2006-02-18 19:52:36.000000000 -0500
+++ linux-2.6.15.noarch/drivers/base/driver.c 2006-02-18 20:07:51.000000000 -0500
@@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ int driver_register(struct device_driver
if ((drv->bus->probe && drv->probe) ||
(drv->bus->remove && drv->remove) ||
(drv->bus->shutdown && drv->shutdown)) {
- printk(KERN_WARNING "Driver '%s' needs updating - please use bus_type methods\n", drv->name);
+ printk(KERN_DEBUG "Driver '%s' needs updating - please use bus_type methods\n", drv->name);
}
klist_init(&drv->klist_devices, klist_devices_get, klist_devices_put);
init_completion(&drv->unloaded);
From: Dave Jones <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2006 20:09:10 -0500
> When users see these printed to the console, they think
> something is wrong. As it's just informational and something
> that only developers care about, lower the printk level.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Jones <[email protected]>
I'm partly against such changes, especially lately...
I've been burned so many times over the past few days by things like
installers, klogd, and whatever else changing the loglevel on me so
that the one console message I needed to see right before the machine
hung doesn't get printed out.
On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 08:09:10PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> When users see these printed to the console, they think
> something is wrong. As it's just informational and something
> that only developers care about, lower the printk level.
If you're getting complaints about this, wouldn't it be better to
forward them here so that they can be fixed up?
The thing about this particular message is that if you see it, the
driver will _not_ work properly, so it's actually more than a
"debugging" message. It's telling you why driver FOO doesn't work.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of: 2.6 Serial core
On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 08:15:23AM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 08:09:10PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > When users see these printed to the console, they think
> > something is wrong. As it's just informational and something
> > that only developers care about, lower the printk level.
>
> If you're getting complaints about this, wouldn't it be better to
> forward them here so that they can be fixed up?
w83627hf, and probably other drivers from drivers/hwmon/
> The thing about this particular message is that if you see it, the
> driver will _not_ work properly, so it's actually more than a
> "debugging" message. It's telling you why driver FOO doesn't work.
I'm pretty certain this driver _was_ working fine before this change.
Dave
On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 03:29:16AM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 08:15:23AM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 08:09:10PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > When users see these printed to the console, they think
> > > something is wrong. As it's just informational and something
> > > that only developers care about, lower the printk level.
> >
> > If you're getting complaints about this, wouldn't it be better to
> > forward them here so that they can be fixed up?
>
> w83627hf, and probably other drivers from drivers/hwmon/
I don't see it - w83627hf registers w83627hf_driver via i2c_isa_add_driver,
which does not have any probe, remove or shutdown methods. Moreover,
i2c_isa_add_driver doesn't set any of these methods. So how can:
if ((drv->bus->probe && drv->probe) ||
(drv->bus->remove && drv->remove) ||
(drv->bus->shutdown && drv->shutdown)) {
be true? Local distro modifications maybe?
>
> > The thing about this particular message is that if you see it, the
> > driver will _not_ work properly, so it's actually more than a
> > "debugging" message. It's telling you why driver FOO doesn't work.
>
> I'm pretty certain this driver _was_ working fine before this change.
If driver->bus->{probe,remove,shutdown} are set, the driver model will
_not_ call driver->{probe,remove,shutdown} itself. Hence, if both
contain pointers then it's highly likely the driver will not work.
Not reporting these instances will lead to users complaining "my
driver doesn't work" and then a headache for someone to work out
why - since nothing obvious will have changed.
--
Russell King
Linux kernel 2.6 ARM Linux - http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/
maintainer of: 2.6 Serial core
On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 09:31:06AM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 03:29:16AM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 08:15:23AM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> > > On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 08:09:10PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > > When users see these printed to the console, they think
> > > > something is wrong. As it's just informational and something
> > > > that only developers care about, lower the printk level.
> > >
> > > If you're getting complaints about this, wouldn't it be better to
> > > forward them here so that they can be fixed up?
> >
> > w83627hf, and probably other drivers from drivers/hwmon/
>
> I don't see it - w83627hf registers w83627hf_driver via i2c_isa_add_driver,
> which does not have any probe, remove or shutdown methods. Moreover,
> i2c_isa_add_driver doesn't set any of these methods. So how can:
>
> if ((drv->bus->probe && drv->probe) ||
> (drv->bus->remove && drv->remove) ||
> (drv->bus->shutdown && drv->shutdown)) {
>
> be true?
Beats me. I'll put some printk's in there, and see what falls out.
> Local distro modifications maybe?
Nope. drivers/hwmon & drivers/i2c is untouched.
Dave
On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 03:29:16AM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 08:15:23AM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 08:09:10PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > When users see these printed to the console, they think
> > > something is wrong. As it's just informational and something
> > > that only developers care about, lower the printk level.
> >
> > If you're getting complaints about this, wouldn't it be better to
> > forward them here so that they can be fixed up?
>
> w83627hf, and probably other drivers from drivers/hwmon/
With 2.6.16-rc4? I thought I just sent a patch in for -rc3 to fix this.
thanks,
greg k-h
On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 09:57:45AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > > If you're getting complaints about this, wouldn't it be better to
> > > forward them here so that they can be fixed up?
> >
> > w83627hf, and probably other drivers from drivers/hwmon/
>
> With 2.6.16-rc4? I thought I just sent a patch in for -rc3 to fix this.
Yep, user was running an older kernel.
Much ado about nothing..
Thanks,
Dave
On Sunday 19 February 2006 03:29, Dave Jones wrote:
>On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 08:15:23AM +0000, Russell King wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 08:09:10PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > When users see these printed to the console, they think
> > > something is wrong. As it's just informational and something
> > > that only developers care about, lower the printk level.
> >
> > If you're getting complaints about this, wouldn't it be better to
> > forward them here so that they can be fixed up?
>
>w83627hf, and probably other drivers from drivers/hwmon/
>
> > The thing about this particular message is that if you see it, the
> > driver will _not_ work properly, so it's actually more than a
> > "debugging" message. It's telling you why driver FOO doesn't work.
>
>I'm pretty certain this driver _was_ working fine before this change.
>
> Dave
I got an advisory about w83627hf in my logs, but not from the rc4
reboot. The previous ones were:
Feb 13 00:31:18 coyote kernel: Driver 'w83627hf' needs updating - please
use bus_type methods
Feb 13 00:36:20 coyote kernel: Driver 'w83627hf' needs updating - please
use bus_type methods
Two quick reboots there, the first one would have been rc2, I forgot to
update grub.conf :(
which would have been booted to rc2 and 3, not rc4. I believe they
started at rc1 but I won't swear to that. gkrellm and sensors are both
working albeit sensors is saying C for the diode in the cpu when it
should be F
gkrellm-2.28 is displaying it correctly though.
So apparently something has been updated with rc4?
--
Cheers, Gene
People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word
'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's
stupid bounce rules. I do use spamassassin too. :-)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
On Sunday 19 February 2006 12:57, Greg KH wrote:
>On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 03:29:16AM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 08:15:23AM +0000, Russell King wrote:
>> > On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 08:09:10PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
>> > > When users see these printed to the console, they think
>> > > something is wrong. As it's just informational and something
>> > > that only developers care about, lower the printk level.
>> >
>> > If you're getting complaints about this, wouldn't it be better to
>> > forward them here so that they can be fixed up?
>>
>> w83627hf, and probably other drivers from drivers/hwmon/
>
>With 2.6.16-rc4? I thought I just sent a patch in for -rc3 to fix
> this.
>
It must be in rc4 Greg, I didn't see that error on the rc4 bootup.
>thanks,
>
>greg k-h
>-
>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
> linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected]
>More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
Cheers, Gene
People having trouble with vz bouncing email to me should add the word
'online' between the 'verizon', and the dot which bypasses vz's
stupid bounce rules. I do use spamassassin too. :-)
Yahoo.com and AOL/TW attorneys please note, additions to the above
message by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2006 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 01:37:25PM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 09:57:45AM -0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>
> > > > If you're getting complaints about this, wouldn't it be better to
> > > > forward them here so that they can be fixed up?
> > >
> > > w83627hf, and probably other drivers from drivers/hwmon/
> >
> > With 2.6.16-rc4? I thought I just sent a patch in for -rc3 to fix this.
>
> Yep, user was running an older kernel.
> Much ado about nothing..
Great, thanks for checking up on this.
greg k-h