On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 7:25 PM Michael Niewöhner <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > 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 > >
