[U-Boot] [PATCH] common: Increase LOGLEVEL back to 6
Commit 6a3e65dea3e5 ("common: Drop LOGLEVEL to 4") reduced the loglevel resulting in pr_warn() messages fro e.g. UBI are not shown anymore. With this change back to 6, messages like this appear again:
nand: attempt to erase a bad/reserved block @6000000
Signed-off-by: Stefan Roese sr@denx.de Cc: Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com --- common/Kconfig | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/common/Kconfig b/common/Kconfig index 4d7215a360..678a108508 100644 --- a/common/Kconfig +++ b/common/Kconfig @@ -266,7 +266,7 @@ config IDENT_STRING
config LOGLEVEL int "loglevel" - default 4 + default 6 range 0 8 help All Messages with a loglevel smaller than the console loglevel will
On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 05:13:44PM +0200, Stefan Roese wrote:
Commit 6a3e65dea3e5 ("common: Drop LOGLEVEL to 4") reduced the loglevel resulting in pr_warn() messages fro e.g. UBI are not shown anymore. With this change back to 6, messages like this appear again:
nand: attempt to erase a bad/reserved block @6000000
Signed-off-by: Stefan Roese sr@denx.de Cc: Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com
common/Kconfig | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/common/Kconfig b/common/Kconfig index 4d7215a360..678a108508 100644 --- a/common/Kconfig +++ b/common/Kconfig @@ -266,7 +266,7 @@ config IDENT_STRING
config LOGLEVEL int "loglevel"
- default 4
- default 6 range 0 8 help All Messages with a loglevel smaller than the console loglevel will
This is a huge size increase on boards that rely on the default. And I bet this causes some boards to no longer link. That said, if boards want more logging messages, such as warnings, they can increase it on their own. If you feel that whole SoCs would benefit from this, I have no objection to default 6 if ... being added. And if the example message you gave is more than just a warning and should be seen more often, perhaps it should be a higher level message? Thanks!
On 06.08.2018 20:52, Tom Rini wrote:
On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 05:13:44PM +0200, Stefan Roese wrote:
Commit 6a3e65dea3e5 ("common: Drop LOGLEVEL to 4") reduced the loglevel resulting in pr_warn() messages fro e.g. UBI are not shown anymore. With this change back to 6, messages like this appear again:
nand: attempt to erase a bad/reserved block @6000000
Signed-off-by: Stefan Roese sr@denx.de Cc: Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com
common/Kconfig | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/common/Kconfig b/common/Kconfig index 4d7215a360..678a108508 100644 --- a/common/Kconfig +++ b/common/Kconfig @@ -266,7 +266,7 @@ config IDENT_STRING
config LOGLEVEL int "loglevel"
- default 4
- default 6 range 0 8 help All Messages with a loglevel smaller than the console loglevel will
This is a huge size increase on boards that rely on the default. And I bet this causes some boards to no longer link. That said, if boards want more logging messages, such as warnings, they can increase it on their own. If you feel that whole SoCs would benefit from this, I have no objection to default 6 if ... being added. And if the example message you gave is more than just a warning and should be seen more often, perhaps it should be a higher level message? Thanks!
Its a "warn" and this should be visible to the user IMHO. One might discuss, if an "info" or "notice" text should printed, but warnings seem quite important (at least for my taste). Changing this to even higher level messages (like "err") is too much. And this would lead to differences between Linux and U-Boot which we should avoid.
Back to the issue, if you don't want to pull this change for the default LOGLEVEL, I will change it for this board or platform as you suggested above. Just let me know.
Thanks, Stefan
On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 12:18:04PM +0200, Stefan Roese wrote:
On 06.08.2018 20:52, Tom Rini wrote:
On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 05:13:44PM +0200, Stefan Roese wrote:
Commit 6a3e65dea3e5 ("common: Drop LOGLEVEL to 4") reduced the loglevel resulting in pr_warn() messages fro e.g. UBI are not shown anymore. With this change back to 6, messages like this appear again:
nand: attempt to erase a bad/reserved block @6000000
Signed-off-by: Stefan Roese sr@denx.de Cc: Tom Rini trini@konsulko.com
common/Kconfig | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/common/Kconfig b/common/Kconfig index 4d7215a360..678a108508 100644 --- a/common/Kconfig +++ b/common/Kconfig @@ -266,7 +266,7 @@ config IDENT_STRING config LOGLEVEL int "loglevel"
- default 4
- default 6 range 0 8 help All Messages with a loglevel smaller than the console loglevel will
This is a huge size increase on boards that rely on the default. And I bet this causes some boards to no longer link. That said, if boards want more logging messages, such as warnings, they can increase it on their own. If you feel that whole SoCs would benefit from this, I have no objection to default 6 if ... being added. And if the example message you gave is more than just a warning and should be seen more often, perhaps it should be a higher level message? Thanks!
Its a "warn" and this should be visible to the user IMHO. One might discuss, if an "info" or "notice" text should printed, but warnings seem quite important (at least for my taste). Changing this to even higher level messages (like "err") is too much. And this would lead to differences between Linux and U-Boot which we should avoid.
Back to the issue, if you don't want to pull this change for the default LOGLEVEL, I will change it for this board or platform as you suggested above. Just let me know.
Please bump it per board/SoC, thanks!
Dear Tom,
In message 20180807111435.GD29229@bill-the-cat you wrote:
Its a "warn" and this should be visible to the user IMHO. One might discuss, if an "info" or "notice" text should printed, but warnings seem quite important (at least for my taste). Changing this to even
...
Please bump it per board/SoC, thanks!
So we stop printing warnings now, just to satisfy code size limitations on a few boards?
This is a totally wrong approach! If code size is a problem, these boards should disable unneeded or at least non-essential features, but you don;t want to ignore warnings, especially if these cause a command to not perform the expected operation.
Please reconsider!
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk
On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 01:37:34PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Tom,
In message 20180807111435.GD29229@bill-the-cat you wrote:
Its a "warn" and this should be visible to the user IMHO. One might discuss, if an "info" or "notice" text should printed, but warnings seem quite important (at least for my taste). Changing this to even
...
Please bump it per board/SoC, thanks!
So we stop printing warnings now, just to satisfy code size limitations on a few boards?
This is a totally wrong approach! If code size is a problem, these boards should disable unneeded or at least non-essential features, but you don;t want to ignore warnings, especially if these cause a command to not perform the expected operation.
Yes, by default "warnings", which means pr_warn, along with pr_notice and pr_info get optimized away. In no case should a warning be printed in a case where we aren't otherwise recovering and working correctly. I think there's a strong case here that the root problem here is that the prints in question ought to be pr_err and that should be corrected in the kernel too.
On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 09:17:34AM -0400, Tom Rini wrote:
On Tue, Aug 07, 2018 at 01:37:34PM +0200, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Tom,
In message 20180807111435.GD29229@bill-the-cat you wrote:
Its a "warn" and this should be visible to the user IMHO. One might discuss, if an "info" or "notice" text should printed, but warnings seem quite important (at least for my taste). Changing this to even
...
Please bump it per board/SoC, thanks!
So we stop printing warnings now, just to satisfy code size limitations on a few boards?
This is a totally wrong approach! If code size is a problem, these boards should disable unneeded or at least non-essential features, but you don;t want to ignore warnings, especially if these cause a command to not perform the expected operation.
Yes, by default "warnings", which means pr_warn, along with pr_notice and pr_info get optimized away. In no case should a warning be printed in a case where we aren't otherwise recovering and working correctly. I think there's a strong case here that the root problem here is that the prints in question ought to be pr_err and that should be corrected in the kernel too.
That said, I am not strictly against increasing the default, slightly, to 5 (which means 4 and lower included). The troublesome boards already set things to 3 in their configs and we can make SPL_LOGLEVEL be untied from LOGLEVEL. But I want someone to show me the before/after size deltas on that too.
participants (3)
-
Stefan Roese -
Tom Rini -
Wolfgang Denk