On Wed, 2015-08-26 at 21:07 -0600, Ross Zwisler wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:20:23AM -0600, Toshi Kani wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/nfit.c b/drivers/acpi/nfit.c
> > index c3fe206..6993ff2 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/nfit.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/nfit.c
> > @@ -701,12 +701,13 @@ static ssize_t flags_show(struct device *dev,
> > {
> > u16 flags = to_nfit_memdev(dev)->flags;
> >
> > - return sprintf(buf, "%s%s%s%s%s\n",
> > - flags & ACPI_NFIT_MEM_SAVE_FAILED ? "save " :
> > "",
> > - flags & ACPI_NFIT_MEM_RESTORE_FAILED ? "restore
> > " : "",
> > - flags & ACPI_NFIT_MEM_FLUSH_FAILED ? "flush " :
> > "",
> > - flags & ACPI_NFIT_MEM_ARMED ? "arm " : "",
> > - flags & ACPI_NFIT_MEM_HEALTH_OBSERVED ? "smart
> > " : "");
> > + return sprintf(buf, "%s%s%s%s%s%s\n",
> > + flags & ACPI_NFIT_MEM_SAVE_FAILED ? "save_fail " : "",
> > + flags & ACPI_NFIT_MEM_RESTORE_FAILED ? "restore_fail "
> > : "",
> > + flags & ACPI_NFIT_MEM_FLUSH_FAILED ? "flush_fail " :
> > "",
> > + flags & ACPI_NFIT_MEM_ARMED ? "not_arm " : "",
>
> Assuming we do want to update these strings to be more friendly,
> "not_armed" probably makes more sense than "not_arm". Also applies to the
> 2nd hunk below.
Agreed. (Will update if this patch gets ever resurrected. :-)
> > + flags & ACPI_NFIT_MEM_HEALTH_OBSERVED ? "smart_event " > > : "",
> > + flags & ACPI_NFIT_MEM_HEALTH_ENABLED ? "notify_enabled
> > " : "");
> > }
> > static DEVICE_ATTR_RO(flags);
> >
> > @@ -834,11 +835,11 @@ static int acpi_nfit_register_dimms(struct
> > acpi_nfit_desc *acpi_desc)
> > continue;
> >
> > dev_info(acpi_desc->dev, "%s: failed: %s%s%s%s\n",
> > - nvdimm_name(nvdimm),
> > - mem_flags & ACPI_NFIT_MEM_SAVE_FAILED ? "save "
> > : "",
> > - mem_flags & ACPI_NFIT_MEM_RESTORE_FAILED ?
> > "restore " : "",
> > - mem_flags & ACPI_NFIT_MEM_FLUSH_FAILED ? "flush
> > " : "",
> > - mem_flags & ACPI_NFIT_MEM_ARMED ? "arm " : "");
> > + nvdimm_name(nvdimm),
> > + mem_flags & ACPI_NFIT_MEM_SAVE_FAILED ? "save_fail "
> > : "",
> > + mem_flags & ACPI_NFIT_MEM_RESTORE_FAILED ?
> > "restore_fail ":"",
> > + mem_flags & ACPI_NFIT_MEM_FLUSH_FAILED ? "flush_fail
> > " : "",
> > + mem_flags & ACPI_NFIT_MEM_ARMED ? "not_arm " : "");
>
> While you're in here, is there a reason not to include the last two flags
> (smart_event and notify_enabled) in this dev_info() output?
This dev_info() logs any failure in NVDIMM, and the last two flags are not
failure conditions.
Thanks,
-Toshi
--
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
