[PATCH v2 2/4] mtd: nand: convert printk() to pr_*()

[Brian Norris]

On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 9:03 AM, Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-06-09 at 09:00 -0700, Brian Norris wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 12:44 AM, Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Wait, and why are we using pr_* while it is better to use dbg_* ? :-)
>>
>> Just so we're on the same page...did you say "dbg_*" when you really
>> meant "dev_*"?
>
> Yes, I meant dev_*
>
>> Anyway, the answer is: I'm mostly trying to do as little shakeup as
>> possible, so "printk" could translate pretty directly to the "pr_*"
>> with shorter code, etc. If it makes as much (or more) sense to have
>> the device name on all the prints, then I can just as well do it that
>> way.
>
> Yes, I think it makes much more sense to specify for which device (out
> of possibly many!) this message belongs.

I've been testing some of the "dev_*" printing, and it seems as if our
mtd_info structs never have fully initialized "device" fields (i.e.,
mtd->dev.driver, mtd->dev.bus, mtd->dev.class, mtd->dev.init_name,
etc. are never filled in with anything meaningful). That means that
our dev_* messages do not have anything to work from and simply print
" (null): " references before our strings instead of device
driver/name information, for example:

 (null): ONFI flash detected

I'm a little new to the Linux device model, so I'm not sure if it's
safe and sensible to add lines to a driver's nand_probe function,
like, for plat_nand.c:
data->mtd.dev.driver = pdev->dev.driver;
data->mtd.dev.init_name = dev_name(&pdev->dev);

Is there some better way to initialize these device values? Or should
we scrap the whole dev_* thing since MTD doesn't match the device
model well enough?

Brian