From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from szxga06-in.huawei.com (szxga06-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.32]) (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 DE1A327B4F7; Thu, 23 Oct 2025 09:27:58 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.32 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761211681; cv=none; b=DucgOk2o9kD97Dtj3SFrc1E9xijSDNhq30c9bp9BLa+fFRtj3Ud+gegOnlqDLywQ8hRmy85L/ZCKaaEXz+6zyXW5jPxP4SeqShn4JlTe0m0WRwmWVt1OhvQtjLUFMBHuB5eRYsmJUzRFRzS5wqBJ0K2p+VEP9KzrasUL+0VHPT4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761211681; c=relaxed/simple; bh=OhWnH2hi1c2eRf012mL/hJqHRglQrxYLUPSY1uqGB6o=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:Subject:To:CC:References:From: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=nkWrp7FfYRUGAWWSG7zdek1JrESNqa552c0dGhkbuibJj/UBh5757gJAWJRRpr4+kEyu/Z41SHGYQZI0CH3RnSvp0bLH5jpEzzo84YhrhXeZwfwanmzWZzOgSPyJ16BhLapFFuXcDZ1aX5Xl5cr3suZkXleZmiP02ai0Lkx8VdA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=h-partners.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.32 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=h-partners.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.162.112]) by szxga06-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4csgJ32Jqtz11Wsc; Thu, 23 Oct 2025 17:11:15 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggemv706-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [10.3.19.33]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09D1E14011B; Thu, 23 Oct 2025 17:09:59 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemn100009.china.huawei.com (7.202.194.112) by dggemv706-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.33) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Thu, 23 Oct 2025 17:09:58 +0800 Received: from [10.67.121.59] (10.67.121.59) by kwepemn100009.china.huawei.com (7.202.194.112) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Thu, 23 Oct 2025 17:09:58 +0800 Message-ID: <32d9ae29-55e9-4102-afbe-f34c20a19a02@huawei.com> Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2025 17:09:54 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/9] ACPI: processor: idle: raise up log level when evaluate LPI failed To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" CC: , , , , , , , , References: <20250929093754.3998136-1-lihuisong@huawei.com> <20250929093754.3998136-2-lihuisong@huawei.com> From: "lihuisong (C)" In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-ClientProxiedBy: kwepems200001.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.67) To kwepemn100009.china.huawei.com (7.202.194.112) 在 2025/10/22 3:29, Rafael J. Wysocki 写道: > On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 11:38 AM Huisong Li wrote: >> According to ACPI spec, LPI package must be ACPI_TYPE_PACKAGE and >> the count of package must be greater than 4. And the count contained >> in package needs to be equal to the value of count field in LPI package. >> All are illegal and return failure. It is better for these verification >> to use error level log instead of debug so as to get detailed logs directly >> when initialization fails. >> >> Signed-off-by: Huisong Li >> --- >> drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c >> index 22b051b94a86..5acf12a0441f 100644 >> --- a/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/processor_idle.c >> @@ -908,7 +908,7 @@ static int acpi_processor_evaluate_lpi(acpi_handle handle, >> /* There must be at least 4 elements = 3 elements + 1 package */ >> if (!lpi_data || lpi_data->type != ACPI_TYPE_PACKAGE || >> lpi_data->package.count < 4) { >> - pr_debug("not enough elements in _LPI\n"); >> + pr_err("not enough elements in _LPI\n"); >> ret = -ENODATA; >> goto end; >> } >> @@ -917,7 +917,7 @@ static int acpi_processor_evaluate_lpi(acpi_handle handle, >> >> /* Validate number of power states. */ >> if (pkg_count < 1 || pkg_count != lpi_data->package.count - 3) { >> - pr_debug("count given by _LPI is not valid\n"); >> + pr_err("count given by _LPI is not valid\n"); >> ret = -ENODATA; >> goto end; >> } >> -- > They are pr_debug() on purpose because they are not useful to anyone > other than the people who work on _LPI implementations in firmware or > debug firmware issues. They do not indicate kernel functional issues > in particular. ok, get this purpose. Thanks.