Message ID | 20200605125545.31974-1-frank@allwinnertech.com (mailing list archive) |
---|---|
State | New, archived |
Headers | show |
Series | [1/2] mmc: sunxi-mmc: do not hide address in sunxi_mmc_irq() | expand |
Hi, On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 08:55:44PM +0800, Frank Lee wrote: > From: Yangtao Li <tiny.windzz@gmail.com> > > Using %px to show the actual address in sunxi_mmc_irq() > to help us to debug issue. > > Signed-off-by: Yangtao Li <tiny.windzz@gmail.com> > Signed-off-by: Frank Lee <frank@allwinnertech.com> I'm fairly sure this hash is on purpose, and both the commit log of the %px introduction (ad67b74d2469) and the checkpatch message are pretty explicit about it. What issue were you trying to solve here? Maxime
On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 11:18 PM Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 08:55:44PM +0800, Frank Lee wrote: > > From: Yangtao Li <tiny.windzz@gmail.com> > > > > Using %px to show the actual address in sunxi_mmc_irq() > > to help us to debug issue. > > > > Signed-off-by: Yangtao Li <tiny.windzz@gmail.com> > > Signed-off-by: Frank Lee <frank@allwinnertech.com> > > I'm fairly sure this hash is on purpose, and both the commit log of the > %px introduction (ad67b74d2469) and the checkpatch message are pretty > explicit about it. > > What issue were you trying to solve here? There doesn't seem to be a strong requirement to force this to be printed out, I just think that ____ptrval____ is very unpleasant. Or delete %p directly? Yangtao
On Mon, Jun 08, 2020 at 08:54:51PM +0800, Frank Lee wrote: > On Fri, Jun 5, 2020 at 11:18 PM Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > On Fri, Jun 05, 2020 at 08:55:44PM +0800, Frank Lee wrote: > > > From: Yangtao Li <tiny.windzz@gmail.com> > > > > > > Using %px to show the actual address in sunxi_mmc_irq() > > > to help us to debug issue. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Yangtao Li <tiny.windzz@gmail.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Frank Lee <frank@allwinnertech.com> > > > > I'm fairly sure this hash is on purpose, and both the commit log of the > > %px introduction (ad67b74d2469) and the checkpatch message are pretty > > explicit about it. > > > > What issue were you trying to solve here? > > There doesn't seem to be a strong requirement to force this to be printed out, > I just think that ____ptrval____ is very unpleasant. That should happen only at boot when the system doesn't have enough entropy iirc, after a while it prints out hashes. > Or delete %p directly? You mean the message in the driver? I'd be fine with that too. Maxime
diff --git a/drivers/mmc/host/sunxi-mmc.c b/drivers/mmc/host/sunxi-mmc.c index 5e95bbc51644..dcd30c3e1fac 100644 --- a/drivers/mmc/host/sunxi-mmc.c +++ b/drivers/mmc/host/sunxi-mmc.c @@ -574,7 +574,7 @@ static irqreturn_t sunxi_mmc_irq(int irq, void *dev_id) idma_int = mmc_readl(host, REG_IDST); msk_int = mmc_readl(host, REG_MISTA); - dev_dbg(mmc_dev(host->mmc), "irq: rq %p mi %08x idi %08x\n", + dev_dbg(mmc_dev(host->mmc), "irq: rq %px mi %08x idi %08x\n", host->mrq, msk_int, idma_int); mrq = host->mrq;