Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220310150905.1.Ie0a005d7a763d501e03b7abe8ee968ca99d23282@changeid>
 <CAHp75Vfbs6sPsrjwxNWLZQu=pEoar2K5sY=fX9a7KkOe=mwsZw@mail.gmail.com> <CAMRc=Mc_bw40uY68jcPYR-Lwe-qLcxmQeZO47WrexZtSiE_M5Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMRc=Mc_bw40uY68jcPYR-Lwe-qLcxmQeZO47WrexZtSiE_M5Q@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 22 Mar 2022 16:59:01 +0200
Message-ID: <CAHp75VcK0JDkTXuPc2N8G+OotXK0mqfQn7i4nDqXDODe1SqcrQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: Drop CONFIG_DEBUG_GPIO
To:     Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>
Cc:     Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org>,
        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 Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 4:49 PM Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 3:38 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 4:55 AM Brian Norris <briannorris@chromium.org> wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Which is what some and I are using a lot during development.
> >
>
> AFAIK this: https://www.kernel.org/doc/local/pr_debug.txt is the right
> way to do it?

Yes. But it means we need to have a separate option on a per driver
(or group of drivers) basis. I don't think it's a good idea right now.

> https://www.kernel.org/doc/local/pr_debug.txt
>
> This doesn't mention adding Kconfig options just to enable debug messages.
>
> > ...
> >
> > > -ccflags-$(CONFIG_DEBUG_GPIO)   += -DDEBUG
> > > -
> >
> > NAK to this change.
> >
> > I'm not against enabling might_sleep() unconditionally.
> >
>
> These are already controlled by CONFIG_DEBUG_ATOMIC_SLEEP, no? Or
> maybe I can't parse that double negation.

The part of the patch that converts might_sleep_if():s is fine with me.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko