Fix printing when no interrupt is allocated

Commit Message

Joe Perches Oct. 19, 2012, 1:21 a.m. UTC

On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 08:33 +0800, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
> Previously a new line is implicitly added in the no GSI case:
> 
> [    7.185182] pci 0001:00:12.0: can't derive routing for PCI INT A
> [    7.191352] pci 0001:00:12.0: PCI INT A: no GSI
> [    7.195956]  - using ISA IRQ 10
> 
> The code thus prints a blank line where no legacy IRQ is available:
> 
> [    1.650124] pci 0000:00:14.0: can't derive routing for PCI INT A
> [    1.650126] pci 0000:00:14.0: PCI INT A: no GSI
> [    1.650126] 
> [    1.650180] pci 0000:00:14.0: can't derive routing for PCI INT A
> 
> Fix this by making the newline explicit and removing the superfluous
> one.


I think this is a better fix:

 drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c | 11 ++++++-----
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)



--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to [e-mail]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Comments

Daniel J Blueman Oct. 31, 2012, 9:03 a.m. UTC | #1

Hi Len,

On 19/10/2012 09:21, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-10-19 at 08:33 +0800, Daniel J Blueman wrote:
>> Previously a new line is implicitly added in the no GSI case:
>>
>> [    7.185182] pci 0001:00:12.0: can't derive routing for PCI INT A
>> [    7.191352] pci 0001:00:12.0: PCI INT A: no GSI
>> [    7.195956]  - using ISA IRQ 10
>>
>> The code thus prints a blank line where no legacy IRQ is available:
>>
>> [    1.650124] pci 0000:00:14.0: can't derive routing for PCI INT A
>> [    1.650126] pci 0000:00:14.0: PCI INT A: no GSI
>> [    1.650126]
>> [    1.650180] pci 0000:00:14.0: can't derive routing for PCI INT A
>>
>> Fix this by making the newline explicit and removing the superfluous
>> one.
>
> I think this is a better fix:
>
>   drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c | 11 ++++++-----
>   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
> index 0eefa12..9b98f9f 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
> @@ -459,19 +459,20 @@ int acpi_pci_irq_enable(struct pci_dev *dev)
>   	 */
>   	if (gsi < 0) {
>   		u32 dev_gsi;
> -		dev_warn(&dev->dev, "PCI INT %c: no GSI", pin_name(pin));
>   		/* Interrupt Line values above 0xF are forbidden */
>   		if (dev->irq > 0 && (dev->irq <= 0xF) &&
>   		    (acpi_isa_irq_to_gsi(dev->irq, &dev_gsi) == 0)) {
> -			printk(" - using ISA IRQ %d\n", dev->irq);
> +			dev_warn(&dev->dev,
> +				 "PCI INT %c: no GSI - using ISA IRQ %d\n",
> +				 pin_name(pin), dev->irq);
>   			acpi_register_gsi(&dev->dev, dev_gsi,
>   					  ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE,
>   					  ACPI_ACTIVE_LOW);
> -			return 0;
>   		} else {
> -			printk("\n");
> -			return 0;
> +			dev_warn(&dev->dev, "PCI INT %c: no GSI\n",
> +				 pin_name(pin));
>   		}
> +		return 0;
>   	}
>
>   	rc = acpi_register_gsi(&dev->dev, gsi, triggering, polarity);

We're still seeing this in 3.7-rc3. Any preference to the approach here?

Thanks,
   Daniel

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
index 0eefa12..9b98f9f 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_irq.c
@@ -459,19 +459,20 @@  int acpi_pci_irq_enable(struct pci_dev *dev)
 	 */
 	if (gsi < 0) {
 		u32 dev_gsi;
-		dev_warn(&dev->dev, "PCI INT %c: no GSI", pin_name(pin));
 		/* Interrupt Line values above 0xF are forbidden */
 		if (dev->irq > 0 && (dev->irq <= 0xF) &&
 		    (acpi_isa_irq_to_gsi(dev->irq, &dev_gsi) == 0)) {
-			printk(" - using ISA IRQ %d\n", dev->irq);
+			dev_warn(&dev->dev,
+				 "PCI INT %c: no GSI - using ISA IRQ %d\n",
+				 pin_name(pin), dev->irq);
 			acpi_register_gsi(&dev->dev, dev_gsi,
 					  ACPI_LEVEL_SENSITIVE,
 					  ACPI_ACTIVE_LOW);
-			return 0;
 		} else {
-			printk("\n");
-			return 0;
+			dev_warn(&dev->dev, "PCI INT %c: no GSI\n",
+				 pin_name(pin));
 		}
+		return 0;
 	}
 
 	rc = acpi_register_gsi(&dev->dev, gsi, triggering, polarity);