From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755556AbdC1UBJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Mar 2017 16:01:09 -0400 Received: from mail-ot0-f194.google.com ([74.125.82.194]:33401 "EHLO mail-ot0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752808AbdC1UBG (ORCPT ); Tue, 28 Mar 2017 16:01:06 -0400 Reply-To: minyard@acm.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI / IPMI: change warning to debug on timeout References: <1490283150-24000-1-git-send-email-okaya@codeaurora.org> <537c0d7a-fd95-2e7f-be07-9e3ca79ca07a@acm.org> <39c54677-1472-afff-ec70-45a790f56e50@codeaurora.org> To: Sinan Kaya , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, timur@codeaurora.org Cc: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Len Brown , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Zheng, Lv" From: Corey Minyard Message-ID: <67243d7f-0195-a214-b9d4-bdac48743893@acm.org> Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2017 15:01:02 -0500 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <39c54677-1472-afff-ec70-45a790f56e50@codeaurora.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 03/25/2017 09:08 AM, Sinan Kaya wrote: > On 3/24/2017 10:55 PM, Corey Minyard wrote: >> Why would a timeout for a message be expected? The BMC should >> at least respond with an error for an incorrect message. > Let me add some more context... > > In this particular case, the FRU ID that I was trying to access was > correct. > > Platform supports PCIe hotplug. The FRU is embedded into the HW that > is being removed. That's what I mean by non-existent. > > When the device is ejected and a FRU command is executed, BMC times out > reaching to the FRU on the device. > > When the device is inserted, everything works as expected. I haven't added this yet. Someone who knows more about the ACPI side of IPMI should probably comment. So I've added Lv Zheng. This is ok with me, though. If you remove a management controller, a timeout is expected. However, if the management controller is still present, a timeout is probably not the best error code, "destination unavailable" is probably a better choice. So: Acked-by: Corey Minyard -corey > >> -corey >> >> On 03/23/2017 10:32 AM, Sinan Kaya wrote: >>> Getting timeout message from BMC when trying to read from a non-existent >>> FRU. This is expected but warning is not. >>> >>> Let's reduce the warning to debug. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Sinan Kaya >>> --- >>> drivers/acpi/acpi_ipmi.c | 3 +-- >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_ipmi.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_ipmi.c >>> index 747c2ba..1b64419 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_ipmi.c >>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_ipmi.c >>> @@ -429,8 +429,7 @@ static void ipmi_msg_handler(struct ipmi_recv_msg *msg, void *user_msg_data) >>> if (msg->recv_type == IPMI_RESPONSE_RECV_TYPE && >>> msg->msg.data_len == 1) { >>> if (msg->msg.data[0] == IPMI_TIMEOUT_COMPLETION_CODE) { >>> - dev_WARN_ONCE(dev, true, >>> - "Unexpected response (timeout).\n"); >>> + dev_dbg_once(dev, "Unexpected response (timeout).\n"); >>> tx_msg->msg_done = ACPI_IPMI_TIMEOUT; >>> } >>> goto out_comp; >> >> >