This patch uses pr_* instead of printk. Also, gpio_dbg
is replaced with pr_debug.
Signed-off-by: Jingoo Han <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <[email protected]>
---
Change since v2:
- remove Ryan Mallon's signed-off-by
drivers/gpio/gpio-samsung.c | 18 ++++++------------
1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-samsung.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-samsung.c
index a006f0d..5c5ccdf 100644
--- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-samsung.c
+++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-samsung.c
@@ -42,12 +42,6 @@
#include <plat/gpio-fns.h>
#include <plat/pm.h>
-#ifndef DEBUG_GPIO
-#define gpio_dbg(x...) do { } while (0)
-#else
-#define gpio_dbg(x...) printk(KERN_DEBUG x)
-#endif
-
int samsung_gpio_setpull_updown(struct samsung_gpio_chip *chip,
unsigned int off, samsung_gpio_pull_t pull)
{
@@ -599,7 +593,7 @@ static int samsung_gpiolib_4bit_input(struct gpio_chip *chip,
con &= ~(0xf << con_4bit_shift(offset));
__raw_writel(con, base + GPIOCON_OFF);
- gpio_dbg("%s: %p: CON now %08lx\n", __func__, base, con);
+ pr_debug("%s: %p: CON now %08lx\n", __func__, base, con);
return 0;
}
@@ -627,7 +621,7 @@ static int samsung_gpiolib_4bit_output(struct gpio_chip *chip,
__raw_writel(con, base + GPIOCON_OFF);
__raw_writel(dat, base + GPIODAT_OFF);
- gpio_dbg("%s: %p: CON %08lx, DAT %08lx\n", __func__, base, con, dat);
+ pr_debug("%s: %p: CON %08lx, DAT %08lx\n", __func__, base, con, dat);
return 0;
}
@@ -671,7 +665,7 @@ static int samsung_gpiolib_4bit2_input(struct gpio_chip *chip,
con &= ~(0xf << con_4bit_shift(offset));
__raw_writel(con, regcon);
- gpio_dbg("%s: %p: CON %08lx\n", __func__, base, con);
+ pr_debug("%s: %p: CON %08lx\n", __func__, base, con);
return 0;
}
@@ -706,7 +700,7 @@ static int samsung_gpiolib_4bit2_output(struct gpio_chip *chip,
__raw_writel(con, regcon);
__raw_writel(dat, base + GPIODAT_OFF);
- gpio_dbg("%s: %p: CON %08lx, DAT %08lx\n", __func__, base, con, dat);
+ pr_debug("%s: %p: CON %08lx, DAT %08lx\n", __func__, base, con, dat);
return 0;
}
@@ -926,10 +920,10 @@ static void __init samsung_gpiolib_add(struct samsung_gpio_chip *chip)
#ifdef CONFIG_PM
if (chip->pm != NULL) {
if (!chip->pm->save || !chip->pm->resume)
- printk(KERN_ERR "gpio: %s has missing PM functions\n",
+ pr_err("gpio: %s has missing PM functions\n",
gc->label);
} else
- printk(KERN_ERR "gpio: %s has no PM function\n", gc->label);
+ pr_err("gpio: %s has no PM function\n", gc->label);
#endif
/* gpiochip_add() prints own failure message on error. */
--
1.7.1
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 3:52 AM, Jingoo Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> This patch uses pr_* instead of printk. Also, gpio_dbg
> is replaced with pr_debug.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jingoo Han <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <[email protected]> <- NAK
Please consult Documentation/SubmittingPatches as to the conditions that
apply when you add Reviewed-by tags.
Hint: it doesn't mean "I know Linus looked at this patch".
Yours,
Linus Walleij
On Friday, October 19, 2012 7:09 PM Linus Walleij wrote
>
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 3:52 AM, Jingoo Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > This patch uses pr_* instead of printk. Also, gpio_dbg
> > is replaced with pr_debug.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jingoo Han <[email protected]>
> > Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <[email protected]> <- NAK
>
> Please consult Documentation/SubmittingPatches as to the conditions that
> apply when you add Reviewed-by tags.
Um, you already gave the Reviewed-by to the same patch, a month ago.
Anyway, I will remove Reviewed-by and send v4 patch, soon.
>
> Hint: it doesn't mean "I know Linus looked at this patch".
>
> Yours,
> Linus Walleij
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 3:02 AM, Jingoo Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Friday, October 19, 2012 7:09 PM Linus Walleij wrote
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 3:52 AM, Jingoo Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > This patch uses pr_* instead of printk. Also, gpio_dbg
>> > is replaced with pr_debug.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Jingoo Han <[email protected]>
>> > Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <[email protected]> <- NAK
>>
>> Please consult Documentation/SubmittingPatches as to the conditions that
>> apply when you add Reviewed-by tags.
>
> Um, you already gave the Reviewed-by to the same patch, a month ago.
> Anyway, I will remove Reviewed-by and send v4 patch, soon.
My bad. I confused this mail thread for something else, sorry
for this. :-(
Please keep the Reviewed-tag if you want to!
Yours,
Linus Walleij (Now less confused)
Linus Walleij wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 3:02 AM, Jingoo Han <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Friday, October 19, 2012 7:09 PM Linus Walleij wrote
> >>
> >> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 3:52 AM, Jingoo Han <[email protected]>
wrote:
> >>
> >> > This patch uses pr_* instead of printk. Also, gpio_dbg
> >> > is replaced with pr_debug.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Jingoo Han <[email protected]>
> >> > Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <[email protected]> <- NAK
> >>
> >> Please consult Documentation/SubmittingPatches as to the conditions
> that
> >> apply when you add Reviewed-by tags.
> >
> > Um, you already gave the Reviewed-by to the same patch, a month ago.
> > Anyway, I will remove Reviewed-by and send v4 patch, soon.
>
> My bad. I confused this mail thread for something else, sorry
> for this. :-(
>
> Please keep the Reviewed-tag if you want to!
>
Linus, if you don't have any objection, let me take this into Samsung tree.
Thanks.
Best regards,
Kgene.
--
Kukjin Kim <[email protected]>, Senior Engineer,
SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 4:10 PM, Kukjin Kim <[email protected]> wrote:
> Linus Walleij wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 3:02 AM, Jingoo Han <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > On Friday, October 19, 2012 7:09 PM Linus Walleij wrote
>> >>
>> >> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 3:52 AM, Jingoo Han <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > This patch uses pr_* instead of printk. Also, gpio_dbg
>> >> > is replaced with pr_debug.
>> >> >
>> >> > Signed-off-by: Jingoo Han <[email protected]>
>> >> > Reviewed-by: Linus Walleij <[email protected]> <- NAK
>> >>
>> >> Please consult Documentation/SubmittingPatches as to the conditions
>> that
>> >> apply when you add Reviewed-by tags.
>> >
>> > Um, you already gave the Reviewed-by to the same patch, a month ago.
>> > Anyway, I will remove Reviewed-by and send v4 patch, soon.
>>
>> My bad. I confused this mail thread for something else, sorry
>> for this. :-(
>>
>> Please keep the Reviewed-tag if you want to!
>>
> Linus, if you don't have any objection, let me take this into Samsung tree.
Of course you should take it, sorry for the mess.
Acked-by/Reviewed-by: <[email protected]>
Yours,
Linus Walleij