[PATCH] v3: s/BIOS_DEBUG/DEBUG/ etc. for printk()

[Uwe Hermann]

See patch.


Uwe.
-- 
http://www.hermann-uwe.de  | http://www.holsham-traders.de
http://www.crazy-hacks.org | http://www.unmaintained-free-software.org

[Peter Stuge]

Uwe Hermann wrote:
> Drop the 'BIOS_' prefix from all printk() log-levels.

It would be nice to have another prefix though. Maybe LOG_ ? Without
a prefix some of the names look a bit too generic.


//Peter

[Uwe Hermann]

On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 03:31:20AM +0200, Peter Stuge wrote:
> Uwe Hermann wrote:
> > Drop the 'BIOS_' prefix from all printk() log-levels.
>
> It would be nice to have another prefix though. Maybe LOG_ ? Without
> a prefix some of the names look a bit too generic.

I've though about that, but I don't see it as a big problem. Only
"DEBUG" tends to be misused in v2, but we can easily avoid that by
using DEBUG_SMBUS, DEBUG_FOOBAR #defines in v3 (if at all; all of
those custom DEBUG #defines should be printk()-loglevels anyway;
I think the reason for DEBUG in v2 is usually romcc/size relåted(?))

If we all desperately want a prefix, how about something really short,
e.g. LDEBUG, LWARN, LINFO, ... ? I'd really like to keep the printk()
lines as short as possible for readability reasons.


Uwe.
-- 
http://www.hermann-uwe.de  | http://www.holsham-traders.de
http://www.crazy-hacks.org | http://www.unmaintained-free-software.org

[Uwe Hermann]

On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 01:05:59PM +0200, Uwe Hermann wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 03:31:20AM +0200, Peter Stuge wrote:
> > Uwe Hermann wrote:
> > > Drop the 'BIOS_' prefix from all printk() log-levels.
> >
> > It would be nice to have another prefix though. Maybe LOG_ ? Without
> > a prefix some of the names look a bit too generic.
>
> I've though about that, but I don't see it as a big problem. Only
> "DEBUG" tends to be misused in v2, but we can easily avoid that by
> using DEBUG_SMBUS, DEBUG_FOOBAR #defines in v3 (if at all; all of
> those custom DEBUG #defines should be printk()-loglevels anyway;
> I think the reason for DEBUG in v2 is usually romcc/size relåted(?))
>
> If we all desperately want a prefix, how about something really short,
> e.g. LDEBUG, LWARN, LINFO, ... ? I'd really like to keep the printk()
> lines as short as possible for readability reasons.

*ping*

Other opinions on this patch? Acks? ;) What does everyone think
of LDEBUG, LINFO etc.?


Uwe.
-- 
http://www.hermann-uwe.de  | http://www.holsham-traders.de
http://www.crazy-hacks.org | http://www.unmaintained-free-software.org

[ron minnich]

On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Uwe Hermann <[e-mail]> wrote:
> *ping*
>
> Other opinions on this patch? Acks? ;) What does everyone think
> of LDEBUG, LINFO etc.?

you should get agreement from someone else, but removing the name
BIOS_ is ok by me, if only because it gets rid of BIOS.

Prefix is fine too: L is perfectly ok to me.

But I'm easy.


ron

[Peter Stuge]

Uwe Hermann wrote:
> Other opinions on this patch? Acks? ;)
> What does everyone think of LDEBUG, LINFO etc.?

I will ack a change to LOG_DEBUG, LOG_INFO etc.


//Peter

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

On 25.10.2008 13:05, Uwe Hermann wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 03:31:20AM +0200, Peter Stuge wrote:
> > Uwe Hermann wrote:
> > > Drop the 'BIOS_' prefix from all printk() log-levels.
> >
> > It would be nice to have another prefix though. Maybe LOG_ ? Without
> > a prefix some of the names look a bit too generic.
>
> I've though about that, but I don't see it as a big problem. Only
> "DEBUG" tends to be misused in v2, but we can easily avoid that by
> using DEBUG_SMBUS, DEBUG_FOOBAR #defines in v3 (if at all; all of
> those custom DEBUG #defines should be printk()-loglevels anyway;
> I think the reason for DEBUG in v2 is usually romcc/size relåted(?))
>
> If we all desperately want a prefix, how about something really short,
> e.g. LDEBUG, LWARN, LINFO, ... ? I'd really like to keep the printk()
> lines as short as possible for readability reasons.

Can't we just keep the names as they are?

Regards,
Carl-Daniel

-- 
http://www.hailfinger.org/

[ron minnich]

On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> On 25.10.2008 13:05, Uwe Hermann wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 03:31:20AM +0200, Peter Stuge wrote:
> > > Uwe Hermann wrote:
> > > > Drop the 'BIOS_' prefix from all printk() log-levels.
> > >
> > > It would be nice to have another prefix though. Maybe LOG_ ? Without
> > > a prefix some of the names look a bit too generic.
> >
> > I've though about that, but I don't see it as a big problem. Only
> > "DEBUG" tends to be misused in v2, but we can easily avoid that by
> > using DEBUG_SMBUS, DEBUG_FOOBAR #defines in v3 (if at all; all of
> > those custom DEBUG #defines should be printk()-loglevels anyway;
> > I think the reason for DEBUG in v2 is usually romcc/size relåted(?))
> >
> > If we all desperately want a prefix, how about something really short,
> > e.g. LDEBUG, LWARN, LINFO, ... ? I'd really like to keep the printk()
> > lines as short as possible for readability reasons.
>
> Can't we just keep the names as they are?

I think the majority prefer that they not change ...

ron

[Stefan Reinauer]

ron minnich schrieb:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > On 25.10.2008 13:05, Uwe Hermann wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 03:31:20AM +0200, Peter Stuge wrote:
> > > > Uwe Hermann wrote:
> > > > > Drop the 'BIOS_' prefix from all printk() log-levels.
> > > >
> > > > It would be nice to have another prefix though. Maybe LOG_ ? Without
> > > > a prefix some of the names look a bit too generic.
> > >
> > > I've though about that, but I don't see it as a big problem. Only
> > > "DEBUG" tends to be misused in v2, but we can easily avoid that by
> > > using DEBUG_SMBUS, DEBUG_FOOBAR #defines in v3 (if at all; all of
> > > those custom DEBUG #defines should be printk()-loglevels anyway;
> > > I think the reason for DEBUG in v2 is usually romcc/size relåted(?))
> > >
> > > If we all desperately want a prefix, how about something really short,
> > > e.g. LDEBUG, LWARN, LINFO, ... ? I'd really like to keep the printk()
> > > lines as short as possible for readability reasons.
> >
> > Can't we just keep the names as they are?
>
> I think the majority prefer that they not change ...

Add me to that majority. I think those names are good as they are.

Please don't change such stuff just for the sake of it.

a) it really does not matter
b) don't make it longer than it is
c) keep it comprehensible.


If you want to change something, I suggest you think about whether we 
can get rid of some of the levels.

[ron minnich]

Let's leave it alone. There's no strong feeling for changing it and
these patches make it *really* hard for people who are working on
private mods.

ron

[Corey Osgood]

On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Stefan Reinauer <[e-mail]>wrote:
> ron minnich schrieb:
>
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 2:58 PM, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger
> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > On 25.10.2008 13:05, Uwe Hermann wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 03:31:20AM +0200, Peter Stuge wrote:
> > > > > Uwe Hermann wrote:
> > > > > > Drop the 'BIOS_' prefix from all printk() log-levels.
> > > > >
> > > > > It would be nice to have another prefix though. Maybe LOG_ ? Without
> > > > > a prefix some of the names look a bit too generic.
> > > >
> > > > I've though about that, but I don't see it as a big problem. Only
> > > > "DEBUG" tends to be misused in v2, but we can easily avoid that by
> > > > using DEBUG_SMBUS, DEBUG_FOOBAR #defines in v3 (if at all; all of
> > > > those custom DEBUG #defines should be printk()-loglevels anyway;
> > > > I think the reason for DEBUG in v2 is usually romcc/size relåted(?))
> > > >
> > > > If we all desperately want a prefix, how about something really short,
> > > > e.g. LDEBUG, LWARN, LINFO, ... ? I'd really like to keep the printk()
> > > > lines as short as possible for readability reasons.
> > >
> > > Can't we just keep the names as they are?
> >
> > I think the majority prefer that they not change ...
>
> Add me to that majority. I think those names are good as they are.
>
> Please don't change such stuff just for the sake of it.
>
> a) it really does not matter
> b) don't make it longer than it is
> c) keep it comprehensible.

I'm agreeing here too. changing it breaks most outstanding patches, screws
up everyone that's used to BIOS_X, and I can't really see any benefit to a
different name, aside from less typing, but that's what copy and paste are
for ;)

-Corey

[Peter Stuge]

Corey Osgood wrote:
> screws up everyone that's used to BIOS_X, and I can't really see
> any benefit to a different name

I think changing "BIOS" is a good idea. It's just misleading to have
that in coreboot source.


//Peter