On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 03:09:12PM +0100, Johan Hovold wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 04, 2024 at 07:20:01PM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote:
> > On 11/1/24 19:39, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > > On Wed, Oct 30, 2024 at 06:25:09PM +0530, Sibi Sankar wrote:
>
> > >> @@ -387,7 +387,7 @@ process_response_opp(struct device *dev, struct perf_dom_info *dom,
> > >>
> > >> ret = xa_insert(&dom->opps_by_lvl, opp->perf, opp, GFP_KERNEL);
> > >> if (ret) {
> > >> - dev_warn(dev, "Failed to add opps_by_lvl at %d for %s - ret:%d\n",
> > >> + dev_info(dev, FW_BUG "Failed to add opps_by_lvl at %d for %s - ret:%d\n",
> > >> opp->perf, dom->info.name, ret);
> > >
> > > I was hoping you could make the error message a bit more informative as
> > > well, for example, by saying that a duplicate opp level was ignored:
> > >
> > > arm-scmi arm-scmi.0.auto: [Firmware Bug]: Ignoring duplicate OPP 3417600 for NCC
> >
> > I did think about doing something similar but xa_insert can fail
> > with both -EXIST (duplicate) and -ENOMEM, so the we can't really
> > use term duplicate when insert fails. I can add the perf level
> > though to the message though.
>
> We generally don't log errors for memory allocation failures (e.g. as
> that would already have been taken care of by the allocators, if that is
> the source of the -ENOMEM).
>
> But either way you should be able to check the errno to determine if
> this is due to a duplicate entry or not.
Everyone has valid reasons for their argument here, so we need to find
a safe middle ground. Will stating it as [Possible Firmware Bug] be any
useful ? If there is -ENOMEM, other error messages will be seen before
this and user can ignore this error until that memory issue is fixed ?
--
Regards,
Sudeep
