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@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" ? 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 > > > >
