[Skiboot] [PATCH trivial] hdata/i2c: Reduce severity of log message

[Stewart Smith]

Stewart Smith <stewart at linux.ibm.com> writes:
> Vasant Hegde <hegdevasant at linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>> Looks like WARNING message resulting in some unnecessary bug report.
>> Lets reduce severity to PR_NOTICE.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Vasant Hegde <hegdevasant at linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> ---
>>  hdata/i2c.c | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/hdata/i2c.c b/hdata/i2c.c
>> index 6b797bc3f..e3615a59d 100644
>> --- a/hdata/i2c.c
>> +++ b/hdata/i2c.c
>> @@ -323,7 +323,7 @@ int parse_i2c_devs(const struct HDIF_common_hdr *hdr, int idata_index,
>>  		 * hdat. Log both cases to see what/where/why.
>>  		 */
>>  		if (!type || dev->type == 0xFF) {
>> -			prlog(PR_WARNING, "HDAT I2C: found e%dp%d - %s@%x dp:%02x (%#x:%s)\n",
>> +			prlog(PR_NOTICE, "HDAT I2C: found e%dp%d - %s@%x dp:%02x (%#x:%s)\n",
>>  			      dev->i2cm_engine, dev->i2cm_port, name, dev_addr,
>>  			      dev->dev_port, purpose, info->label);
>>  			continue;
>
> HDAT seems such a crapshoot as to if anything useful is there, so
> silencing it is probably okay? Will we ever look at it though?
>
> Oliver, what's your thoughts?
>
> (I'm in two minds on if should merge or not, I'm more concerned we'll
> just miss fixing things because we'll never look at the full log in
> memory and find this message)

For the moment I've taken the patch as of dd9b61cdfca7225f7b4afebfb65fc0ee47488e37

-- 
Stewart Smith
OPAL Architect, IBM.