On Wednesday 20 August 2008 20:37:42 Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 August 2008 11:02:04 am Thomas Renninger wrote:
> > From: Christian Kornacker <ckornacker@xxxxxxx>
> >
> > This is mostly needed for ACPI systems.
> > ACPI introduces an endless amount of possible BIOS
> > bugs like wrong values, missing functions, etc.
> > The kernel has to sanity check all of them and should
> > report BIOS bugs as such to the user.
>
> I can't quite decide whether the whole idea is over-engineering
> or not. I guess my hesitation is mainly that things like this take
> ongoing maintenance to keep them valuable, and that's often where
> things fall apart.
It mainly depends on reviewing, telling people to use it if a BIOS
related bug happens.
> > +#define FW_EMERG KERN_EMERG /* System cannot boot */
> > +#define FW_ALERT KERN_ALERT /* Risk of HW or data damage,
> > + e.g. overheating, dmraid */
> > +#define FW_CRIT KERN_CRIT /* A major device is not functional
> > + e.g. hpet, lapic, network... */
> > +#define FW_ERR KERN_ERR /* A major device is not working
> > + as expected, e.g. cpufreq stuck
> > + to lowest freq, lowered
> > + performance, increased power
> > + consumption... */
> > +#define FW_WARN KERN_WARNING /* A minor device does not work
> > + or is not fully functional,
> > + e.g. backlight brightness,
> > + Hotplug capabilities of a
> > + device that should be
> > + hot-plugable will not work */
> > +#define FW_INFO KERN_INFO /* Anything else related to BIOS
> > + that is worth mentioning */
> > +
> > +
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_REPORT_FIRMWARE_BUGS
> > + #define FW_PRINT_WARN(severity, fmt, args...) printk("%s[BIOS]: " fmt
> > "\n", \ + severity, ##args)
> > +#else
> > + #define FW_PRINT_WARN(severity, fmt, args...) do { } while (0)
> > +#endif
> > +
> > +#define FW_PRINT_CRIT(severity, fmt, args...) printk("%s[BIOS]: " fmt
> > "\n", \ + severity, ##args)
>
> I think there are too many possibilities (FW_PRINT_WARN vs FW_PRINT_CRIT,
> then one of FW_INFO, FW_WARN, FW_ERR, FW_CRIT, FW_ALERT, FW_EMERG).
> A simpler interface with only one or two choices would give 90% of the
> benefit.
One idea is to use the printk severity feature as it is there anyway.
Another idea is that a lot BIOS violations do not necessarily
harm functionality, keyword "Windows compatibility" and other work
arounds.
You generally want to hide those from the customer, but there
may be use cases where you still want to know such things.
> My preference would be to *not* add a newline inside the interface.
> Everybody knows printk needs a newline, and it's simpler if all the
> printk variants follow that same rule.
>
> The "BIOS" string is very x86-centric. I'd prefer something like
> "firmware" or "FW" that's also applicable to non-x86 systems.
Firmware is a bit long?
For What is FW? FireWire?
Firmware could be used, if it is called BIOS everybody knows that it is
related to some firmware? Not sure, I am not a native English speaker.
> I'm on a real dev_printk() kick at the moment, so I'd like to see
> a way to hook a message to *something*, whether it's a specific
> device, an ACPI method, a table at a specific physical address, etc.
> For example, this:
>
> + FW_PRINT_CRIT(FW_ERR, PFX "No ACPI _PSS objects for
> CPU" + " other than CPU0. Complain to
> your BIOS" + " vendor");
>
> would be nicer if it could report the specific CPU device.
> Admittedly, many of the places you touch don't currently have
> an idea of a "device." But sometimes that's a deficiency in
> the current Linux implementation, so I think your interface
> should at least allow a device.
>
> Maybe even something as simple as:
>
> #define FW_BUG "[FW bug]: "
>
> would be sufficient, with the idea that people could do this:
>
> dev_err(&dev->dev, FW_BUG "interrupts left enabled\n");
>
> I think the user-space value derives from having a consistent string
> to grep for, so this gives you that. I'm not sure what value we get
> from adding the new FW_PRINT_CRIT()/FW_PRINT_WARN() interfaces in the
> kernel.
What about this one:
pr_fw_err() or dev_fw_err() on harmful firmware bugs
and
pr_fw_info() on non-harmful but ugly BIOS constructs
which should not exist, violate the spec or could make
trouble in the future (maybe Firmware is really better...):
diff --git a/include/linux/device.h b/include/linux/device.h
index d24a47f..3204cea 100644
--- a/include/linux/device.h
+++ b/include/linux/device.h
@@ -538,6 +538,9 @@ extern const char *dev_driver_string(struct device *dev);
#define dev_info(dev, format, arg...) \
dev_printk(KERN_INFO , dev , format , ## arg)
+#define dev_fw_err(dev, format, arg...) \
+ dev_printk(KERN_ERR "[BIOS Bug] ", dev , format , ## arg)
+
#ifdef DEBUG
#define dev_dbg(dev, format, arg...) \
dev_printk(KERN_DEBUG , dev , format , ## arg)
diff --git a/include/linux/kernel.h b/include/linux/kernel.h
index 2651f80..b20f618 100644
--- a/include/linux/kernel.h
+++ b/include/linux/kernel.h
@@ -303,6 +303,12 @@ static inline char *pack_hex_byte(char *buf, u8 byte)
#define pr_info(fmt, arg...) \
printk(KERN_INFO fmt, ##arg)
+#define pr_fw_err(fmt, arg...) \
+ printk(KERN_ERR "[BIOS Bug]" fmt, ##arg)
+
+#define pr_fw_info(fmt, arg...) \
+ printk(KERN_INFO "[BIOS]" fmt, ##arg)
+
#ifdef DEBUG
/* If you are writing a driver, please use dev_dbg instead */
#define pr_debug(fmt, arg...) \
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
