| Message ID | 1350487901-3108-6-git-send-email-will.deacon@arm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 10/17/12 08:31, Will Deacon wrote: > Booting on a v6 core without the CPUID feature registers (e.g. 1136) > leads to a noisy dmesg complaining about their absence. > > This patch changes the pr_warning into a WARN_ONCE to keep the log > quieter. > > Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> > --- > @@ -135,11 +135,10 @@ static u8 get_debug_arch(void) > u32 didr; > > /* Do we implement the extended CPUID interface? */ > - if (((read_cpuid_id() >> 16) & 0xf) != 0xf) { > - pr_warning("CPUID feature registers not supported. " > - "Assuming v6 debug is present.\n"); > + if (WARN_ONCE(((read_cpuid_id() >> 16) & 0xf) != 0xf, > + "CPUID feature registers not supported. " > + "Assuming v6 debug is present.\n")) Won't this print a big stack trace instead of a one liner? Perhaps you want pr_warn_once()?
diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c b/arch/arm/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c index b6f4aec..f267120 100644 --- a/arch/arm/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c @@ -135,11 +135,10 @@ static u8 get_debug_arch(void) u32 didr; /* Do we implement the extended CPUID interface? */ - if (((read_cpuid_id() >> 16) & 0xf) != 0xf) { - pr_warning("CPUID feature registers not supported. " - "Assuming v6 debug is present.\n"); + if (WARN_ONCE(((read_cpuid_id() >> 16) & 0xf) != 0xf, + "CPUID feature registers not supported. " + "Assuming v6 debug is present.\n")) return ARM_DEBUG_ARCH_V6; - } ARM_DBG_READ(c0, 0, didr); return (didr >> 16) & 0xf;
Booting on a v6 core without the CPUID feature registers (e.g. 1136) leads to a noisy dmesg complaining about their absence. This patch changes the pr_warning into a WARN_ONCE to keep the log quieter. Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> --- arch/arm/kernel/hw_breakpoint.c | 7 +++---- 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)