From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 40B37258EE0 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2025 14:21:26 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761834087; cv=none; b=gBjSav5cmCUTTlM5X7FG/UjWWQ2IzUfdZljDKb6RhajQagKCkk2AIdWyDlpwm3rgr8xdcm9Ucl/CRoaO+fWTo6rw735Q9eSAFigPWhL1SNmhfEIpwgFvcSCNnG1rEOy6k2GU87Eh9llReL7k06+t8xvFb+8cj4gZheVFBoSNM4I= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1761834087; c=relaxed/simple; bh=G4M6X4ukwDdtK0M3gElM3SpfrsZYB877fp7JPIwFac0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=hhQsIQ/7nuUpJICwtaxw1LLjDYNdpwC+LK/1B2dqLK5yR+Hkx7AXA4Yoo8soWumqvbbhLWP/XmnE8Wpd7+UGp2p1ysHhAp0/i+OBwYb3KH+QHqm7OL24OSHl8Kbfp1QD6URDZgt+NGQx21K9RrpxirbB1uL8K6H4AJkjA+vj2oc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=EncVGbEk; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="EncVGbEk" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 54ECCC4CEF1; Thu, 30 Oct 2025 14:21:25 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1761834086; bh=G4M6X4ukwDdtK0M3gElM3SpfrsZYB877fp7JPIwFac0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=EncVGbEkQp4nEz26sLKz19YEkza5kL/+obnQL00M6bZAmLviFtplJihyHuPaWc7/1 xbHh9bYuj2ycGagq353dm2l2u9sifvEr88rRUykBDEBky9JHgvptwXXB3xLWkXps1I mRU8/XHNiUKJIKcD1x4MIcKktwk2AKX7Dmbi15OCJFDq3D8KN7VprnmCRAgUSq2Fio 1pCjz5FaT/uXRVj6kpS0ilZlffdjgAArGcB3/aflFa16MC4yXlWmgLGiRVbv0h6o4S nXVynQ/Z/QaDiOdoVaNMasxUdIazgT20cL5p9ZnPa3/ya3xd0t38WgfHY9fL/RTJl0 ZOhsue35I2A+g== Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 14:21:21 +0000 From: Will Deacon To: Punit Agrawal Cc: catalin.marinas@arm.com, guohanjun@huawei.com, chenl311@chinatelecom.cn, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: acpi: Fix incorrect check for default console message Message-ID: References: <20251027141941.3089914-1-punit.agrawal@oss.qualcomm.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20251027141941.3089914-1-punit.agrawal@oss.qualcomm.com> 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. Will