On 1 June 2016 at 03:34, Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poul...@arm.com> wrote: > On 31/05/16 18:58, Joe Perches wrote: >> >> On Tue, 2016-05-31 at 12:57 +0100, Suzuki K Poulose wrote: >>> >>> When we encounter a timeout waiting for a status change via >>> coresight_timeout, the caller always print the offset which >>> was tried. This is pretty much useless as it doesn't specify >>> the bit position we wait for. Also, one needs to lookup the >>> TRM to figure out, what was wrong. This patch changes all >>> such error messages to print something more meaningful. >> >> >> trivia: >> >> Perhaps consistently using >> dev_err(dev, "timeout while waiting for %s\n", "<foo>"); >> could make the object code a bit smaller. >> >>> diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etb10.c >>> b/drivers/hwtracing/coresight/coresight-etb10.c >> >> [] >>> >>> @@ -184,8 +184,7 @@ static void etb_disable_hw(struct etb_drvdata >>> *drvdata) >>> >>> if (coresight_timeout(drvdata->base, ETB_FFCR, ETB_FFCR_BIT, 0)) >>> { >>> dev_err(drvdata->dev, >>> - "timeout observed when probing at offset %#x\n", >>> - ETB_FFCR); >>> + "timeout while waiting for completion of Manual >>> Flush\n"); >> >> >> ie: >> dev_err(drvdata->dev, >> "timeout while waiting for %s\n", >> "completion of Manual Flush"); >> >> but that depends on how many of these coresight >> files are compiled and linked. > > > Or we could move the timeout message to coresight_timeout(). The only > disadvantage is > if a caller is OK with silent timeouts. How about : > > int coresight_timeout(void *base, u32 offset, u32 bit, u32 val, char *info) > > where the message can be suppressed if info == NULL ? > > Mathieu, your thoughts ?
I'd rather keep things separate. Thanks, Mathieu > >> >> There is a while/when usage difference in some of >> the output messages. > > > Right, I will fix them. This was a merged version of individual patches, > hence > the changes. > > Cheers > Suzuki