On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Joe Perches <j...@perches.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-07-26 at 15:37 -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
>> PNP0C01:00: new device for \_SB_.PCI0.ISA_.MBIO
>>
>> I fiddled with this a while ago; it would look something like this:
> []
>> +static noinline_for_stack
>> +char *acpi_name_string(char *buf, char *end, acpi_handle handle,
>> + struct printf_spec spec, const char *fmt)
>> +{
>> + acpi_status status;
>> + struct acpi_buffer buffer = { ACPI_ALLOCATE_BUFFER, NULL };
>> + u32 type = ACPI_SINGLE_NAME;
>> + char *p = buf;
>> +
>> + if (fmt[0] == 'A')
>> + type = ACPI_FULL_PATHNAME;
>
> maybe if (fmt[1] == 'f')
>
>> @@ -982,6 +1007,9 @@ char *pointer(const char *fmt, char *buf, char *end,
>> void *ptr,
>> }
>>
>> switch (*fmt) {
>> + case 'A':
>> + case 'a':
>> + return acpi_name_string(buf, end, ptr, spec, fmt);
>
> There are only so many letters, it might be better to
> just use 'a' and another 'f' after that if necessary
> for "full".
>
> And of course that should be #ifdef'd too
Yes. I'm hesitant about this approach in general, because I don't
think printing the ACPI path is something we should be doing often.
It's not like a struct resource or a MAC address, where there are
dozens or hundreds of users. I really think we should only print ACPI
paths in one or two places, so adding a %p extension would waste a
letter and encourage the wrong behavior.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
