Re: [PATCH 01/12] thinkpad_ec: New driver for ThinkPad embedded controller access

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 8/8/06, Pavel Machek <[email protected]> wrote:
Okay... but do we really need try_lock variant?
We need a nonlocking, nonsleeping variant to do the query in the timer
function (softirq context).


but what is try_lock semantics when taking multiple locks...?
Currently, the same as the undelying down_trylock().


> >> +     if (!check_dmi_for_ec()) {
> >> +             printk(KERN_ERR "thinkpad_ec: no ThinkPad embedded
> >controller!\n");
> >> +             return -ENODEV;
> >
> >KERN_ERR is little strong here, no?
>
> Not sure what's the right one. The user tried to load a module and the
> module can't do that; I saw some drivers use KERN_ERR some
> KERN_WARNING in similar cases. Is there some guideline on choosing
> printk levels?

Well, this will also trigger for thinkpad module compiled into kernel,
right?
OK, I'm changing the DMI failure to KERN_WARNING. Subsequent hardware
checks remains KERN_ERR, since failing those after passing the DMI
check really is abnormal (and indicative of danger).

 Shem
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux