Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220310150905.1.Ie0a005d7a763d501e03b7abe8ee968ca99d23282@changeid>
In-Reply-To: <20220310150905.1.Ie0a005d7a763d501e03b7abe8ee968ca99d23282@changeid>
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
Date:   Mon, 14 Mar 2022 16:00:17 +0100
Message-ID: <CAMRc=McbY6vK_M9fP7Hzg8LE9ANOZKN49hmBFn92YFH+2ToM8w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: Drop CONFIG_DEBUG_GPIO
To:     Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
Cc:     Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
        "open list:GPIO SUBSYSTEM" <linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jianqun Xu <jay.xu@rock-chips.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 12:09 AM Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> CONFIG_DEBUG_GPIO has existed since the introduction of gpiolib, but its
> Kconfig description and motivation seem to have been off-base for quite
> some time.
>
> Description: it says nothing about enabling extra printk()s. But -DDEBUG
> does just that; it turns on every dev_dbg()/pr_debug() that would
> otherwise be silent.
>
> Purpose: might_sleep() and WARN_ON() should have very low overhead, and
> anyway, there's a separate CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP for the
> might_sleep() overhead.
>
> Additionally, the conflated purpose (extra debug checks, and extra
> printing) makes for a mixed bag for users. In particular, some drivers
> can be extra-spammy with -DDEBUG -- e.g., with the Rockchip GPIO driver
> getting moved out of drivers/pinctrl/ in commit 936ee2675eee
> ("gpio/rockchip: add driver for rockchip gpio"), now some dev_dbg()
> calls are enabled in its IRQ handler.
>
> Altogether, it seems like CONFIG_DEBUG_GPIO isn't serving any good
> purpose and should just be removed. It can be supplanted by dynamic
> debug (which post-dates gpiolib) and atomic-debug facilities.
>
> Signed-off-by: Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>
> ---
>

I like it. It's true we don't see many of those DEBUG constructs
anymore nowadays and overhead for might_sleep() and WARN_ON() is
negligible.

Applied, thanks!

Bart