On 2014/1/28 8:28, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On 1/28/2014 1:18 AM, David Rientjes wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014, Jiang Liu wrote:
>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
>>> b/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
>>> index c9311be..c29c2c3 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
>>> @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int acpi_processor_get_info(struct
>>> acpi_device *device)
>>> apic_id = acpi_get_apicid(pr->handle, device_declaration,
>>> pr->acpi_id);
>>> if (apic_id < 0) {
>>> - acpi_handle_err(pr->handle, "failed to get CPU APIC ID.\n");
>>> + acpi_handle_debug(pr->handle, "failed to get CPU APIC ID.\n");
>>> return -ENODEV;
>>> }
>> Don't we already leave some artifact in the kernel log at boot about apic
>> ids that don't get registered? I'm wondering if we should have this
>> warning at all.
>
> It is useful for knowing that there are potentially broken objects in
> the ACPI tables.
And it's very useful to identify BIOS bug in case of CPU hot-addition.
It caused our test team about 1 week to identify BIOS bug in CPU
hot-addition, so I added this debug message.
Thanks!
Gerry
>
>
--
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
