On Wednesday, February 04, 2015 09:56:20 AM Ashwin Chaugule wrote: > Hi Rafael, > > On 4 February 2015 at 08:48, Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tuesday, February 03, 2015 09:44:36 PM Cristian wrote: > >> 2015-02-03 12:11 GMT-03:00 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > >> > On Tuesday, February 03, 2015 10:40:00 AM Cristian wrote: > >> >> Hello, > >> >> > >> >> linux 3.19-rc7 > >> >> Ubuntu Vivid 14.04 alpha > >> >> > >> >> dmesg: > >> >> [ 1.293820] ACPI PCC probe failed. > >> >> > >> >> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=92551 > >> > > >> > Is that a functional problem or just the message? > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > I speak only for myself. > >> > Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. > >> > >> Apparently one message. > > > > So it looks like you build the PCC mailbox driver which is new in 3.19-rc and > > that driver fails to load, because it doesn't find hardware to work with. > > > > The message is harmless, but it also is not useful. The driver in question > > seems to be overly verbose to me in general. > > Apologies. Looks like leftover from some early "printk" style debugging. :) Well, does that mean I should apply the patch below? > > The patch below should make the message go away unless the printing of debug > > messages is on. > > > > Ashwin, that whole thing requires cleaning up: > > - It prints uninteresting debug messages with KERN_ERR or warning priority in > > *many* places. > > - The error codes from acpi_pcc_probe() are ignored, so why bother to return > > any error codes from there? > > - If platform_create_bundle() fails, the debug message doesn't tell us the > > reason, so why bother to print it? > > > > I'm not going to consider any users of this for merging before that cleanup > > happens. > > In V4 of the CPPC patchset I've simplified the PCC code a lot which > should make many of the prints go away. Can we consider that patch > (I'll add any more pr_debugs to it) or would you prefer having a > separate cleanup patch for this? This is a patch for the mailbox subsystem maintainer to consider. If it is accepted and if there are any of these excessvely verbose messages still present, I'll expect them to be fixed in a separate patch. I have one more concern about this driver. Namely, what benefit is there to people like Cristian from it at all? > > --- > > drivers/mailbox/pcc.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > Index: linux-pm/drivers/mailbox/pcc.c > > =================================================================== > > --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/mailbox/pcc.c > > +++ linux-pm/drivers/mailbox/pcc.c > > @@ -386,7 +386,7 @@ static int __init pcc_init(void) > > ret = acpi_pcc_probe(); > > > > if (ret) { > > - pr_err("ACPI PCC probe failed.\n"); > > + pr_debug("ACPI PCC probe failed.\n"); > > return -ENODEV; > > } > > > > @@ -394,7 +394,7 @@ static int __init pcc_init(void) > > pcc_mbox_probe, NULL, 0, NULL, 0); > > > > if (!pcc_pdev) { > > - pr_err("Err creating PCC platform bundle\n"); > > + pr_debug("Err creating PCC platform bundle\n"); > > return -ENODEV; > > } > > > > > -- > 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 -- I speak only for myself. Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center. -- 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
