On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 01:46:18PM +0100, Michal Simek wrote:
> Russell, Will: We discussed this at KS that will be good
> to rephrase it or have different logic around this.
> I am not sure if we can also test that this bit is
> implemented by particular SoC or not.
>
> Maybe logic should be that if SoC uses this bit
> that message is shown in origin format to declare
> that ECC is enabled or disabled.
> When SoC doesn't implement it then do not show this message.
This is not quite what I meant - by making the change you have, you also
omit to print the data cache policy.
> @@ -556,8 +556,9 @@ static void __init build_mem_type_table(void)
> mem_types[MT_CACHECLEAN].prot_sect |= PMD_SECT_WB;
> break;
> }
> - printk("Memory policy: ECC %sabled, Data cache %s\n",
> - ecc_mask ? "en" : "dis", cp->policy);
> + if (ecc_mask)
> + pr_info("Memory policy: ECC enabled, Data cache %s\n",
> + cp->policy);
pr_info("Memory policy: %sData cache %s\n",
ecc_mask ? "ECC enabled, " : "", cp->policy);
is more what I was suggesting.
--
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/
