[PATCH v3 5/5] drivers: bus: omap_l3: Change pr_crit() to dev_err() when IRQ request fails

[Tony Lindgren]

* Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi at ti.com> [140304 23:14]:
> On 03/04/2014 04:37 PM, Santosh Shilimkar wrote:
> > On Tuesday 04 March 2014 08:48 PM, Peter Ujfalusi wrote:
> >> Use dev_err() which will going to print the driver's name as well and the
> >> KERN_ERR level is sufficient in this case (we also print via dev_err when
> >> there is an error with the mem resources)
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Peter Ujfalusi <peter.ujfalusi at ti.com>
> >> Reviewed-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar at ti.com>
> >> ---
> >>  drivers/bus/omap_l3_noc.c | 7 +++----
> >>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/drivers/bus/omap_l3_noc.c b/drivers/bus/omap_l3_noc.c
> >> index 0eff48585ae3..972691a668a3 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/bus/omap_l3_noc.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/bus/omap_l3_noc.c
> >> @@ -158,8 +158,8 @@ static int omap4_l3_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>  	ret = devm_request_irq(&pdev->dev, l3->debug_irq, l3_interrupt_handler,
> >>  			       IRQF_DISABLED, "l3-dbg-irq", l3);
> >>  	if (ret) {
> >> -		pr_crit("L3: request_irq failed to register for 0x%x\n",
> >> -						l3->debug_irq);
> >> +		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "request_irq failed for %d\n",
> >> +			l3->debug_irq);
> >>  		return ret;
> >>  	}
> >>  
> >> @@ -167,8 +167,7 @@ static int omap4_l3_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> >>  	ret = devm_request_irq(&pdev->dev, l3->app_irq, l3_interrupt_handler,
> >>  			       IRQF_DISABLED, "l3-app-irq", l3);
> >>  	if (ret)
> >> -		pr_crit("L3: request_irq failed to register for 0x%x\n",
> >> -						l3->app_irq);
> >> +		dev_err(&pdev->dev, "request_irq failed for %d\n", l3->app_irq);
> >>  
> >>  	return ret;
> >>  }
> >>
> > So this one change in the log level. If I look at now, may be dev_err
> > is fine but the change is not same.
> 
> Not sure what you mean by 'the change is not same'?
> I just picked the old series and rebased it on linux-next, the patch is the
> same as it was back in May 2013:
> https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/5/2/205
> 
> And yes, I have shortened the texts in the print, but the meaning of the
> prints have not changed.

Santosh, got any more comments on this series?

Regards,

Tony
 
> > Apart from above comment, rest of the series looks fine to me.
> > Feel free to add my ack...
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> -- 
> Péter