From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-179.mta0.migadu.com (out-179.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.179]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4717226FDB3 for ; Fri, 1 Aug 2025 14:39:54 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.179 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754059196; cv=none; b=hCMumZ+Rch3Eohv5ZctEVTokQr+kez0QH0w/shzyrJ0GHEWTJcaFUeeufCCW+Sx2q8RPYhtxqmbCMNQgYTSmpgTbl/NA8m4Dl4h99P9/pxl92w/CJCmiRFjrAYZGtxW+q+HwPydNrU/eTDWixOsY5vqOiJLsKVdAOq2kfYS4opA= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1754059196; c=relaxed/simple; bh=10qzaNCcX5ki4jnRLfJpEfT+mNVZ/j6fn5po/Jeka7U=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:Cc:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=OeIzu2G5dnrot6KbNXraSqMR2PcxOoUF1gJJ4qoOEkVc14+GeLCVM/1XaXNCRLd8K19ysWWKRhu9bWfR4uI86jWD2YW8QyDrujJah24y4/JYlfsKPJm271893pigiPaHVkqkgz8TtAObeJ2u7SAXoyikMvgCi5xwngvAb1+VdKY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=n8MyRUMp; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.179 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="n8MyRUMp" Message-ID: <198e2e23-5e75-4223-8d85-fba255bc7fd2@linux.dev> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1754059181; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=6pBSw0WKzweVkoY0V8iO+0CLsPj7VR3/t2uf23FoQNo=; b=n8MyRUMps6RxDyy4e9iIgPfhWSKll6lxWXcxNC6wQCjHaRNlNuRLyhJVwoRDtMHNMlnun6 EcQkJuQdo6EmSbs+n/RLHxeoqP19kUJIP/f1eI3hTYXiJtuHQ6H5AtFFhUhxgmKVwg7x7a 2+hrnkPMkzPgCBJVs18YaUPE3fVTITM= Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2025 10:39:39 -0400 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] wifi: rtw89: Print just once for unknown C2H classes To: Ping-Ke Shih , "linux-wireless@vger.kernel.org" Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Bitterblue Smith References: <20250729204437.164320-1-sean.anderson@linux.dev> <7865d95f-a92e-405d-bc71-f1e1382ad24c@linux.dev> Content-Language: en-US X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Sean Anderson In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT On 7/31/25 20:30, Ping-Ke Shih wrote: > Sean Anderson wrote: >> On 7/29/25 20:36, Ping-Ke Shih wrote: >> > Sean Anderson wrote: >> >> There are more unsupported functions than just LOWRT_RTY. Improve on >> >> commit 3b66519b023b ("wifi: rtw89: phy: add dummy c2h handler to avoid >> >> warning message") by printing a message just once when we first >> >> encounter an unsupported class. >> > >> > Once I encounter an unsupported class/func, I'll check firmware team if the >> > C2H events can be ignored. If so, I add a dummy function to avoid the message. >> > If not, I should add code to handle the event. >> > >> > Do you want to see the message even though it only appears once? >> >> I mean, maybe it should just be a debug? Are these messages useful for anyone >> other than the developers? > > Yes, this could just be a debug. However, developers normally don't turn on > debug mask, so using rtw89_info is to clearly remind developers to pay > attention on this lack of C2H handler. And, I suppose developers must handle > this when they see flooding messages. Well, regular users get this too. It is really unnecessary to print thousands of messages when they are completely benign. >> >> Maybe we should just print only the very first unsupported message at info level >> and print the rest at debug. > > I'm afraid developers will ignore or miss the messages. To reduce messages > is fine to me , but more important is to look up vendor driver to see if > the C2H handler is necessary. OK, so we should print exactly once for each class/func. --Sean