On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 10:04:40AM +0000, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 01:15:56PM +0100, Tabot Kevin wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 09:33:24AM +0000, Daniel Thompson wrote:
> > > On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 05:41:03PM +0100, Tabot Kevin wrote:
> > > > This patch fixes the following:
> > > > - Uses __func__ macro to print function names.
> > > > - Got rid of unnecessary braces around single line if statements.
> > > > - End of block comments on a seperate line.
> > > > - A spelling mistake of the word "on".
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Tabot Kevin <tabot.ke...@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/staging/media/atomisp/i2c/atomisp-ov2680.c | 25
> > > > +++++++++++-----------
> > > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/i2c/atomisp-ov2680.c
> > > > b/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/i2c/atomisp-ov2680.c
> > > > index c907305..1396a33 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/i2c/atomisp-ov2680.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/staging/media/atomisp/i2c/atomisp-ov2680.c
> > > > @@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ static int ov2680_g_bin_factor_x(struct v4l2_subdev
> > > > *sd, s32 *val)
> > > > struct ov2680_device *dev = to_ov2680_sensor(sd);
> > > > struct i2c_client *client = v4l2_get_subdevdata(sd);
> > > >
> > > > - dev_dbg(&client->dev, "++++ov2680_g_bin_factor_x\n");
> > > > + dev_dbg(&client->dev, "++++%s\n", __func__);
> > >
> > > It might be better just to remove this sort of message.
> > >
> > > They are not "wrong wrong" but are they actually useful one a
> > > driver's basic functions work? Even where they are useful
> > > dynamic techniques (ftrace, tracepoints, etc) arguably provide a
> > > better way to support "did my function actually run" debug
> > > approaches anyway.
> >
> > Thank you very much for the response. So, should I just revert back to
> > the original all the changes in places where I replace hard coded
> > functions names with __func__?
>
> [Responses on LKML should be quoted like this rather than top-posted]
>
> Personally I think it is better to remove them completely from the
> driver rather than revert to the original form. Naturally if Mauro or
> Sakari have strong views on this kind of printed message then you
> need to take that into account but, in general, messages like this
> add little or no value to the driver and can be removed.
>
I went through the code in an attempt to completely remove all "dev_dbg"
messages, but I noticed not only are there many "dev_dbg" messages, there
are also many such messages like (dev_info, dev_err, etc). Should I
remove them all too?
>
> > > > @@ -251,8 +251,8 @@ static long __ov2680_set_exposure(struct
> > > > v4l2_subdev *sd, int coarse_itg,
> > > > int ret, exp_val;
> > > >
> > > > dev_dbg(&client->dev,
> > > > - "+++++++__ov2680_set_exposure coarse_itg %d, gain %d,
> > > > digitgain %d++\n",
> > > > - coarse_itg, gain, digitgain);
> > > > + "+++++++%s coarse_itg %d, gain %d, digitgain %d++\n",
> > > > + __func__, coarse_itg, gain, digitgain);
>
> This case is a little less clear cut since the printed message does show
> some elements of internal state. However AFAICT this function just writes
> some state to the hardware so I still take the view that dynamic
> tools (I2C tracepoints for example) provide a better way to debug the
> driver.
>
>
> Daniel.
