On Wed, 2023-10-18 at 12:15 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2023 at 5:22 AM Huang, Kai <kai.huang@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Rafael,
> > Thanks for feedback!
> > >
> >
> >
> > > > @@ -1427,6 +1429,22 @@ static int __init tdx_init(void)
> > > > return -ENODEV;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > +#define HIBERNATION_MSG \
> > > > + "Disable TDX due to hibernation is available. Use 'nohibernate'
> > command line to disable hibernation."
> > >
> > > I'm not sure if this new symbol is really necessary.
> > >
> > > The message could be as simple as "Initialization failed: Hibernation
> > > support is enabled" (assuming a properly defined pr_fmt()), because
> > > that carries enough information about the reason for the failure IMO.
> > >
> > > How to address it can be documented elsewhere.
> >
> >
> > The last patch of this series is the documentation patch to add TDX host. We
> > can add a sentence to suggest the user to use 'nohibernate' kernel command line
> > when one sees TDX gets disabled because of hibernation being available.
> >
> > But isn't better to just provide such information together in the dmesg so the
> > user can immediately know how to resolve this issue?
> >
> > If user only sees "... failed: Hibernation support is enabled", then the user
> > will need additional knowledge to know where to look for the solution first, and
> > only after that, the user can know how to resolve this.
>
> I would expect anyone interested in a given feature to get familiar
> with its documentation in the first place. If they neglect to do that
> and then find this message, it is absolutely fair to expect them to go
> and look into the documentation after all.
OK. I'll remove HIBERNATION_MSG and just print the message suggested by you.
And in the documentation patch, add one sentence to tell user when this happens,
add 'nohibernate' to resolve.
[...]
> >
> > -/* Low-level suspend routine. */
> > -extern int (*acpi_suspend_lowlevel)(void);
> > +typedef int (*acpi_suspend_lowlevel_t)(void);
> > +
> > +/* Set up low-level suspend routine. */
> > +void acpi_set_suspend_lowlevel(acpi_suspend_lowlevel_t func);
>
> I'm not sure about the typededf, but I have no strong opinion against it either.
>
> >
> > /* Physical address to resume after wakeup */
> > unsigned long acpi_get_wakeup_address(void);
> > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
> > index 2a0ea38955df..95be371305c6 100644
> > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/acpi/boot.c
> > @@ -779,11 +779,17 @@ int (*__acpi_register_gsi)(struct device *dev, u32 gsi,
> > void (*__acpi_unregister_gsi)(u32 gsi) = NULL;
> >
> > #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI_SLEEP
> > -int (*acpi_suspend_lowlevel)(void) = x86_acpi_suspend_lowlevel;
> > +static int (*acpi_suspend_lowlevel)(void) = x86_acpi_suspend_lowlevel;
> > #else
> > -int (*acpi_suspend_lowlevel)(void);
> > +static int (*acpi_suspend_lowlevel)(void);
>
> For the sake of consistency, either use the typedef here, or don't use
> it at all.
Ah right.
Since you don't prefer the typedef, I'll abandon it:
E.g,:
void acpi_set_suspend_lowlevel(int (*suspend_lowlevel)(void))
{
acpi_suspend_lowlevel = suspend_lowlevel;
}
Let me know whether this looks good to you?
[...]
>
> Otherwise LGTM.
Thanks. I'll split the helper patch out and include it to the next version of
this series.
