* [PATCH] ACPI: utils: include UUID in _DSM evaluation warning
@ 2022-05-16 17:25 Michael Niewöhner
2022-05-17 14:49 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Michael Niewöhner @ 2022-05-16 17:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafael J. Wysocki, Len Brown, open list:ACPI, open list
The _DSM evaluation warning in its current form is not very helpful, as
it lacks any specific information:
ACPI: \: failed to evaluate _DSM (0x1001)
Thus, include the UUID of the missing _DSM:
ACPI: \: failed to evaluate _DSM bf0212f2-... (0x1001)
Signed-off-by: Michael Niewöhner <linux@mniewoehner.de>
---
drivers/acpi/utils.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/utils.c b/drivers/acpi/utils.c
index d5cedffeeff9..7da993f5b6c3 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/utils.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/utils.c
@@ -681,7 +681,8 @@ acpi_evaluate_dsm(acpi_handle handle, const guid_t *guid,
u64 rev, u64 func,
if (ret != AE_NOT_FOUND)
acpi_handle_warn(handle,
- "failed to evaluate _DSM (0x%x)\n", ret);
+ "failed to evaluate _DSM %pUb (0x%x)\n",
+ ret, guid);
return NULL;
}
--
2.34.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ACPI: utils: include UUID in _DSM evaluation warning
2022-05-16 17:25 [PATCH] ACPI: utils: include UUID in _DSM evaluation warning Michael Niewöhner
@ 2022-05-17 14:49 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2022-05-17 18:25 ` Michael Niewöhner
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2022-05-17 14:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Niewöhner
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki, Len Brown, open list:ACPI, open list
On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 7:25 PM Michael Niewöhner <linux@mniewoehner.de> wrote:
>
> The _DSM evaluation warning in its current form is not very helpful, as
> it lacks any specific information:
> ACPI: \: failed to evaluate _DSM (0x1001)
>
> Thus, include the UUID of the missing _DSM:
> ACPI: \: failed to evaluate _DSM bf0212f2-... (0x1001)
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Niewöhner <linux@mniewoehner.de>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/utils.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/utils.c b/drivers/acpi/utils.c
> index d5cedffeeff9..7da993f5b6c3 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/utils.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/utils.c
> @@ -681,7 +681,8 @@ acpi_evaluate_dsm(acpi_handle handle, const guid_t *guid,
> u64 rev, u64 func,
>
> if (ret != AE_NOT_FOUND)
> acpi_handle_warn(handle,
> - "failed to evaluate _DSM (0x%x)\n", ret);
> + "failed to evaluate _DSM %pUb (0x%x)\n",
> + ret, guid);
Shouldn't this be "guid, ret" ? Also, don't you want to print the
value of the GUID rather than the address of its location?
And I don't think you need to break the line here.
>
> return NULL;
> }
> --
> 2.34.1
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ACPI: utils: include UUID in _DSM evaluation warning
2022-05-17 14:49 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
@ 2022-05-17 18:25 ` Michael Niewöhner
2022-05-17 18:28 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Michael Niewöhner @ 2022-05-17 18:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafael J. Wysocki; +Cc: Len Brown, open list:ACPI, open list
On Tue, 2022-05-17 at 16:49 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 7:25 PM Michael Niewöhner <linux@mniewoehner.de>
> wrote:
> >
> > The _DSM evaluation warning in its current form is not very helpful, as
> > it lacks any specific information:
> > ACPI: \: failed to evaluate _DSM (0x1001)
> >
> > Thus, include the UUID of the missing _DSM:
> > ACPI: \: failed to evaluate _DSM bf0212f2-... (0x1001)
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Michael Niewöhner <linux@mniewoehner.de>
> > ---
> > drivers/acpi/utils.c | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/utils.c b/drivers/acpi/utils.c
> > index d5cedffeeff9..7da993f5b6c3 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/utils.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/utils.c
> > @@ -681,7 +681,8 @@ acpi_evaluate_dsm(acpi_handle handle, const guid_t
> > *guid,
> > u64 rev, u64 func,
> >
> > if (ret != AE_NOT_FOUND)
> > acpi_handle_warn(handle,
> > - "failed to evaluate _DSM (0x%x)\n", ret);
> > + "failed to evaluate _DSM %pUb (0x%x)\n",
> > + ret, guid);
>
> Shouldn't this be "guid, ret" ?
Ouch, yes ofc.
> Also, don't you want to print the
> value of the GUID rather than the address of its location?
Not sure what you mean tbh. Documentation/core-api/printk-formats.rst states
%pUb being the right format. lib/test_printf.c implements it that way, too.
>
> And I don't think you need to break the line here.
>
> >
> > return NULL;
> > }
> > --
> > 2.34.1
> >
> >
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] ACPI: utils: include UUID in _DSM evaluation warning
2022-05-17 18:25 ` Michael Niewöhner
@ 2022-05-17 18:28 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2022-05-17 18:40 ` [PATCH v2] " Michael Niewöhner
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2022-05-17 18:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Niewöhner
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki, Len Brown, open list:ACPI, open list
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 8:26 PM Michael Niewöhner <linux@mniewoehner.de> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2022-05-17 at 16:49 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 7:25 PM Michael Niewöhner <linux@mniewoehner.de>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > The _DSM evaluation warning in its current form is not very helpful, as
> > > it lacks any specific information:
> > > ACPI: \: failed to evaluate _DSM (0x1001)
> > >
> > > Thus, include the UUID of the missing _DSM:
> > > ACPI: \: failed to evaluate _DSM bf0212f2-... (0x1001)
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Michael Niewöhner <linux@mniewoehner.de>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/acpi/utils.c | 3 ++-
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/utils.c b/drivers/acpi/utils.c
> > > index d5cedffeeff9..7da993f5b6c3 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/acpi/utils.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/utils.c
> > > @@ -681,7 +681,8 @@ acpi_evaluate_dsm(acpi_handle handle, const guid_t
> > > *guid,
> > > u64 rev, u64 func,
> > >
> > > if (ret != AE_NOT_FOUND)
> > > acpi_handle_warn(handle,
> > > - "failed to evaluate _DSM (0x%x)\n", ret);
> > > + "failed to evaluate _DSM %pUb (0x%x)\n",
> > > + ret, guid);
> >
> > Shouldn't this be "guid, ret" ?
>
> Ouch, yes ofc.
>
> > Also, don't you want to print the
> > value of the GUID rather than the address of its location?
>
> Not sure what you mean tbh. Documentation/core-api/printk-formats.rst states
> %pUb being the right format. lib/test_printf.c implements it that way, too.
I missed that, sorry.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* [PATCH v2] ACPI: utils: include UUID in _DSM evaluation warning
2022-05-17 18:28 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
@ 2022-05-17 18:40 ` Michael Niewöhner
2022-05-19 18:09 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Michael Niewöhner @ 2022-05-17 18:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rafael J. Wysocki, Len Brown, open list:ACPI, open list
The _DSM evaluation warning in its current form is not very helpful, as
it lacks any specific information:
ACPI: \: failed to evaluate _DSM (0x1001)
Thus, include the UUID of the missing _DSM:
ACPI: \: failed to evaluate _DSM bf0212f2-... (0x1001)
Signed-off-by: Michael Niewöhner <linux@mniewoehner.de>
---
Changes in v2:
- fix arguments order
- fix indentation
- drop line break
drivers/acpi/utils.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/utils.c b/drivers/acpi/utils.c
index d5cedffeeff9..3a9773a09e19 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/utils.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/utils.c
@@ -681,7 +681,7 @@ acpi_evaluate_dsm(acpi_handle handle, const guid_t *guid, u64 rev, u64 func,
if (ret != AE_NOT_FOUND)
acpi_handle_warn(handle,
- "failed to evaluate _DSM (0x%x)\n", ret);
+ "failed to evaluate _DSM %pUb (0x%x)\n", guid, ret);
return NULL;
}
--
2.34.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] ACPI: utils: include UUID in _DSM evaluation warning
2022-05-17 18:40 ` [PATCH v2] " Michael Niewöhner
@ 2022-05-19 18:09 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Rafael J. Wysocki @ 2022-05-19 18:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Niewöhner
Cc: Rafael J. Wysocki, Len Brown, open list:ACPI, open list
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 8:40 PM Michael Niewöhner <linux@mniewoehner.de> wrote:
>
> The _DSM evaluation warning in its current form is not very helpful, as
> it lacks any specific information:
> ACPI: \: failed to evaluate _DSM (0x1001)
>
> Thus, include the UUID of the missing _DSM:
> ACPI: \: failed to evaluate _DSM bf0212f2-... (0x1001)
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Niewöhner <linux@mniewoehner.de>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - fix arguments order
> - fix indentation
> - drop line break
>
> drivers/acpi/utils.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/utils.c b/drivers/acpi/utils.c
> index d5cedffeeff9..3a9773a09e19 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/utils.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/utils.c
> @@ -681,7 +681,7 @@ acpi_evaluate_dsm(acpi_handle handle, const guid_t *guid, u64 rev, u64 func,
>
> if (ret != AE_NOT_FOUND)
> acpi_handle_warn(handle,
> - "failed to evaluate _DSM (0x%x)\n", ret);
> + "failed to evaluate _DSM %pUb (0x%x)\n", guid, ret);
>
> return NULL;
> }
> --
Applied as 5.19 material, thanks!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2022-05-19 18:10 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-05-16 17:25 [PATCH] ACPI: utils: include UUID in _DSM evaluation warning Michael Niewöhner
2022-05-17 14:49 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2022-05-17 18:25 ` Michael Niewöhner
2022-05-17 18:28 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2022-05-17 18:40 ` [PATCH v2] " Michael Niewöhner
2022-05-19 18:09 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®