Re: [PATCH] x86: tidy e820 output

[Bjorn Helgaas <bjorn.helgaas@hp.com>]

On Wednesday, September 22, 2010 03:07:00 pm Yinghai Lu wrote:
> On 09/22/2010 12:11 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:

> > -static void __init e820_print_type(u32 type)
> > +static char * __init e820_type_name(u32 type)
> >  {
> >  	switch (type) {
> >  	case E820_RAM:
> >  	case E820_RESERVED_KERN:
> > -		printk(KERN_CONT "(usable)");
> > -		break;
> > +		return "usable";
> >  	case E820_RESERVED:
> > -		printk(KERN_CONT "(reserved)");
> > -		break;
> > +		return "reserved";
> >  	case E820_ACPI:
> > -		printk(KERN_CONT "(ACPI data)");
> > -		break;
> > +		return "ACPI data";
> >  	case E820_NVS:
> > -		printk(KERN_CONT "(ACPI NVS)");
> > -		break;
> > +		return "ACPI NVS";
> >  	case E820_UNUSABLE:
> > -		printk(KERN_CONT "(unusable)");
> > -		break;
> > -	default:
> > -		printk(KERN_CONT "type %u", type);
> > -		break;
> > +		return "unusable";
> >  	}
> > +	return "(unknown)";
> >  }
> 
> type value?

I decided the code simplification was worth skipping the type.
I'd certainly rather have the type value, too, but I don't know
how much hassle to go through to debug a firmware problem.  How
important do you think it is?

Bjorn