[PATCH net-next v7 7/7] net: stmmac: silence FPE kernel logs

Furong Xu posted 7 patches 1 year, 3 months ago
There is a newer version of this series
[PATCH net-next v7 7/7] net: stmmac: silence FPE kernel logs
Posted by Furong Xu 1 year, 3 months ago
ethtool --show-mm can get real-time state of FPE.
Those kernel logs should keep quiet.

Signed-off-by: Furong Xu <0x1207@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac5.c | 8 ++++----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac5.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac5.c
index dd9583968962..580c02eaded3 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac5.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/stmicro/stmmac/dwmac5.c
@@ -620,22 +620,22 @@ int dwmac5_fpe_irq_status(void __iomem *ioaddr, struct net_device *dev)
 
 	if (value & TRSP) {
 		status |= FPE_EVENT_TRSP;
-		netdev_info(dev, "FPE: Respond mPacket is transmitted\n");
+		netdev_dbg(dev, "FPE: Respond mPacket is transmitted\n");
 	}
 
 	if (value & TVER) {
 		status |= FPE_EVENT_TVER;
-		netdev_info(dev, "FPE: Verify mPacket is transmitted\n");
+		netdev_dbg(dev, "FPE: Verify mPacket is transmitted\n");
 	}
 
 	if (value & RRSP) {
 		status |= FPE_EVENT_RRSP;
-		netdev_info(dev, "FPE: Respond mPacket is received\n");
+		netdev_dbg(dev, "FPE: Respond mPacket is received\n");
 	}
 
 	if (value & RVER) {
 		status |= FPE_EVENT_RVER;
-		netdev_info(dev, "FPE: Verify mPacket is received\n");
+		netdev_dbg(dev, "FPE: Verify mPacket is received\n");
 	}
 
 	return status;
-- 
2.34.1
Re: [PATCH net-next v7 7/7] net: stmmac: silence FPE kernel logs
Posted by Vladimir Oltean 1 year, 3 months ago
On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 05:21:22PM +0800, Furong Xu wrote:
> ethtool --show-mm can get real-time state of FPE.
> Those kernel logs should keep quiet.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Furong Xu <0x1207@gmail.com>
> ---

I don't have a stmmac-based setup to judge in person. But to me, these
still look too chatty, for being things that user space can always query
through netlink.

1070 »       netdev_info(priv->dev, "configured EST\n");
1090 »       netdev_info(priv->dev, "disabled FPE\n");

Also, they don't seem to be balanced. We don't have "disabled EST" and
"enabled FPE"?! I wonder if "disabled FPE" is actually a typo and should
have been "disabled EST"?

What do you think, should these also be suppressed / deleted?