On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 03:13:05PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > 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... Definitely not FW_BUG. The field is reserved *now*; it would be legitimate for a new version of the BGRT spec to define one of those bits for something else. - Josh Triplett -- 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
