Return-path: Received: from mail-qw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.216.46]:53218 "EHLO mail-qw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756013Ab1EGTVr convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sat, 7 May 2011 15:21:47 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1304794931.13983.44.camel@dev.znau.edu.ua> References: <1304632783-8781-1-git-send-email-zajec5@gmail.com> <201105061605.31625.arnd@arndb.de> <1304790665.13983.10.camel@dev.znau.edu.ua> <1304792795.13983.28.camel@dev.znau.edu.ua> <1304794931.13983.44.camel@dev.znau.edu.ua> Date: Sat, 7 May 2011 21:21:46 +0200 Message-ID: (sfid-20110507_212205_846417_9C45C31F) Subject: Re: [PATCH][WAS:bcmai,axi] bcma: add Broadcom specific AMBA bus driver From: =?UTF-8?B?UmFmYcWCIE1pxYJlY2tp?= To: George Kashperko Cc: Arnd Bergmann , linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org, "John W. Linville" , b43-dev@lists.infradead.org, Greg KH , =?UTF-8?Q?Michael_B=C3=BCsch?= , Larry Finger , Arend van Spriel , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Russell King , Andy Botting , linuxdriverproject , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-wireless-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 2011/5/7 George Kashperko : >> >> >> >> The purpose is ridiculously trivial. Print user-friendly names on >> >> scanning. Why not do that? >> > Output like >> > Core 0: ChipCommon (id 0x800, rev 18, vendor 0x14e4) >> > and >> > Core 0: id 0x800, rev 18, vendor 0x14e4 >> > both give to 99% of linux systems' end-users exactly the same consistent >> > information. Its more than enough for diagnostic purposes (I guess >> > scanning code does outputs this for diagnostic purposes by those less >> > than 1% of people who are aware wth is actually that ChipCommon is, not >> > to be just user friendly?). >> >> Really, what's wrong with that? Does it kill anyone's pet we print >> this? We also do: >> pr_err("Scanning failed because of wrong CID\n"); >> return -1; >> While we could drop pr_err. Why to do this? Advanced used can always >> check what -1 means. >> >> I just like this. I find situations when it's useful, while I don't >> see real negatives. I want to keep this. Can we leave this that way? >> Unless someone finds some really bad effects of this? > Nothing wrong except it makes kernel larger while gives _absolutely_ no > benefit to end users. Regardless bus code prints core name or not it > (core name) have absolutely no impact on driver matching. > > Imagine yourself an end-user who haven't got his 80211 core matched with > driver and therefore he haven't got WiFi working. > If bus driver code outputs > Core X: id 0x812, rev. 8, vendor 0x4BF > you (as end user) will look where is 0x4BF/0x812 driver supporting > rev.8. > But if bus driver code outputs > Core X: MAC 802.11 (core id 0x812, rev. 8, vendor 0x4BF) > you (as end user) empowered with MAC 802.11 name knowledge will still > look where is 0x4BF/0x812 driver supporting rev.8. I'll ask linux-wireless instead of linux-usb or linux-arm. I didn't expect longer discussion so I got this trivial example of pr_err. But it appears to be good example/question. How do you see relation between bcma_device_name and: int zd_ioread32v_locked(...) { if (r) { dev_dbg_f(zd_chip_dev(chip), "error: zd_ioread16v_locked. Error number %d\n", r); return r; } } I believe according to your theory we should drop thi error message, right? It eats memory to keep this string while error code can always be checked in source. -- Rafał