On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 8:48 PM Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 08:31:34PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 7:11 PM Ville Syrjälä > > <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 09:59:47PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote: > > > > On Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 06:45:22PM +0000, Pandruvada, Srinivas wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 2023-10-04 at 21:34 +0300, Ville Syrjala wrote: > > > > > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > Restore enough of the original behaviour to stop spamming > > > > > > dmesg with warnings about BIOS locked limits when trying > > > > > > to restore them during resume. > > > > > > > > > > > > This still doesn't 100% match the original behaviour > > > > > > as we no longer attempt to blindly restore the BIOS locked > > > > > > limits. No idea if that makes any difference in practice. > > > > > > > > > > > I lost the context here. Why can't we simply change pr_warn to pr_debug > > > > > here? > > > > > > > > I presume someone wanted to make it pr_warn() for a reason. > > > > I don't mind either way. > > > > > > Ping. Can someone make a decision on how this should get fixed > > > so we get this moving forward? > > > > I thought we were going to replace the pr_warn() with pr_debug(). > > I didn't get any answer whether anyone wants to keep the pr_warn(). > If everyone is happy with pr_debug() that then I can send a patch > for it. Yes, please.
