From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from canpmsgout10.his.huawei.com (canpmsgout10.his.huawei.com [113.46.200.225]) (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 84AD022688C for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2025 02:40:34 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=113.46.200.225 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1763692837; cv=none; b=hqpI9jBhwjauVYC0WWByIsuRIbxDr/0H+ijbuh15LEaoWVYD/vUJd2uCVj1LqqeZD6tFF+mYIwJVaaskmx5SX7GG/iV4w4I/0oaWGuBKoQMA+0JwavXFg+mbr+LhfP2ZRjRqfwt41S7MwhcKZNyQockMS9rIEutFyZNC8vXQG0w= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1763692837; c=relaxed/simple; bh=i82DAk26HyE1TUK+TuoEDTP/D5p0AalhtzKbh1vC5pg=; h=Subject:To:CC:References:From:Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=TS2h/+xOjG5nUGVWzIE3V5WQSqexggvf0cLhW31V2xrepoRwIZp06HlnhXKP1TdXJ4R4yJvErahyhKpI2XGx4hyja3JiG3Jf20+bXSH410euFftVp4vg2169AN2y90hvTkNDcezCtWbiAXCLxbPJ2gq6nxXFVoTVx51oCo0NLkY= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=huawei.com header.i=@huawei.com header.b=GUv6hxJ8; arc=none smtp.client-ip=113.46.200.225 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=huawei.com header.i=@huawei.com header.b="GUv6hxJ8" dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=huawei.com; s=dkim; c=relaxed/relaxed; q=dns/txt; h=From; bh=cvGwMGMKZDJGNPIT1jLLqTNctl+weWy3Y4+e0H1IZtc=; b=GUv6hxJ8TP3+vZcwVdOKnGIei1bKOvWunHAFZXT4W/eDV/taZTzOV18gPMAyuIZWq/C8fc0HW LvYfCWnGsm1JYNWVSbEnDDll7321mLZ3mkRddHZcaWbNn6td+rMbr+3MiZGahHE8xOWl6US1kBb EbuHvPv5ukcS7VHpLGbf8po= Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.88.234]) by canpmsgout10.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTPS id 4dCKCr4410z1K96B; Fri, 21 Nov 2025 10:38:48 +0800 (CST) Received: from dggpemf500002.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.185.36.57]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B88EC140119; Fri, 21 Nov 2025 10:40:31 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.174.178.247] (10.174.178.247) by dggpemf500002.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.57) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.1544.11; Fri, 21 Nov 2025 10:40:31 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: acpi: Fix incorrect check for default console message To: Will Deacon , Punit Agrawal CC: , , , References: <20251027141941.3089914-1-punit.agrawal@oss.qualcomm.com> From: Hanjun Guo Message-ID: <3d79dd24-b11b-7a21-d24b-3c6f85d54c0a@huawei.com> Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2025 10:40:30 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.6.0 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: kwepems500002.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.17) To dggpemf500002.china.huawei.com (7.185.36.57) On 2025/10/30 22:21, Will Deacon wrote: > On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 02:19:41PM +0000, Punit Agrawal wrote: >> bad3fa2fb920 ("ACPI: Suppress misleading SPCR console message when >> SPCR table is absent") mistakenly assumes acpi_parse_spcr() returning >> 0 to indicate a failure to parse SPCR and prints a message to the >> kernel logs accordingly. In reality acpi_parse_spcr() returns 0 on >> success and -ERRNO on failure. >> >> Fix the faulty check to output the correct logging message. >> >> Fixes: bad3fa2fb920 ("ACPI: Suppress misleading SPCR console message when SPCR table is absent") >> Signed-off-by: Punit Agrawal >> --- >> Hi, >> >> After sending a patch to fix incorrect parsing of SPCR[0], I was still >> seeing inconsistent logging on arm64. The result is this nugget. >> >> Considering the pointless churn - I wondered if it isn't better to >> drop the message? If others agree, I can send a patch (and revert >> bad3fa2fb920 while at it). > > I'd be happy dropping the message as it looks pretty useless to me, > especially given that the current logic is broken. Fine with me as well, in the acpi_parse_spcr() there is a default pr_info() for the console information, we can drop it here. Thanks Hanjun