Sujith Manoharan <suj...@msujith.org> writes: > Kalle Valo wrote: >> You mean ath_printk() & friends? But that doesn't require tracing code >> to be in ath.ko as well, right? If I understood correctly, trace.c could >> be under ath9k directory and the kconfig option could be >> ATH9K_TRACEPOINTS. >> >> I think it's just misleading and confusing for the user to call it >> "Atheros wireless tracing" when it only affects ath9k. It's easier to >> understand if each driver has it's own "tracing" kconfig option. > > We have CONFIG_ATH_DEBUG, which is used by ath9k and ath9k_htc. > I think it is okay to have CONFIG_ATH_TRACEPOINTS, which can be > used by ath9k/ath9k_htc too.
In my opinion that just creates even a bigger mess. > The original motive of ath.ko was to have a common module with > debugging facilities that can be shared by Atheros drivers. But, > each driver has ended up reinventing things. The current debug printing code in ath10k is something like 100 lines, I don't see the point of trying to make that common with all ath* drivers. In my opinion ath.ko should only have code which used at least two different drivers (and I consider ath9k.ko and ath9k_htc.ko as one driver). So the right thing here would be to actually move all debugging code from ath.ko to ath9k, as it's the only user anyway. > Since it is mentioned in the help text that ath9k is the only driver > making use of ATH_DEBUG/ATH_TRACEPOINTS, I don't think it is > confusing. To me it is. But it's a mess already so I guess I'm worrying nothing. -- Kalle Valo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
