On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 01:06:42PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> From: Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@xxxxxxxxx>
>
> It's totally legitimate, per the ACPI spec, for the firmware to set the
> BGRT 'status' field to zero to indicate that the BGRT image isn't being
> displayed, and we shouldn't be printing an error message in that case
> because it's just noise for users. So swap pr_err() for pr_debug().
>
> However, Josh points that out it still makes sense to test the validity
> of the upper 7 bits of the 'status' field, since they're marked as
> "reserved" in the spec and must be zero. If firmware violates this it
> really *is* an error.
Sounds to me this should be
pr_warn(FW_WARN "... );
then, no?
So that it hopefully gets caught at early testing when fw can still be
fixed...?
Better yet FW_BUG even...
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--
--
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
