| Message ID | f80dfd57fdca87897f070a3ea4ee0a26b03e7831.camel@mniewoehner.de |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Commit | 06eb8dc097b3fcb2d02eb553b17af5fcc2952f96 |
| Headers | show |
| Series | ACPI: utils: include UUID in _DSM evaluation warning | expand |
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.
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!
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;
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(-) }