On 09.12.20 12:27, Laurent Pinchart wrote: Hi,
>>> I wonder if this shouldn't be dropped instead, commented-out code isn't >>> very useful. >> >> Indeed. Shall I send a separate patch for that ? > > Yes, that would make sense. Okay, I'm currently doing a more in-depth rework. I'll send another patch queue later. Since I don't own the corresponding devices, I can't do much testing (just build tests and careful review), so I need some help w/ that. > As most of the files touched by this patch are device drivers, dev_*() > functions should be used instead of pr_*() where possible. I'd recommend > a first patch that converts to dev_*(), and then a second patch that > converts the remaining printk()s, if any, to pr_*() in the contexts > where no struct device is available or can easily be made available. I'm now splitting it into per-driver patches. They're getting a bit bigger, since I'm also replacing some debug macros, etc. In some cases I'm introducing new helpers for not having to write long expressions to get the actual dev ptr, adding some prefixes (eg. per usb endpoint logging, ...). --mtx -- --- Hinweis: unverschlüsselte E-Mails können leicht abgehört und manipuliert werden ! Für eine vertrauliche Kommunikation senden Sie bitte ihren GPG/PGP-Schlüssel zu. --- Enrico Weigelt, metux IT consult Free software and Linux embedded engineering i...@metux.net -- +49-151-27565287
