On Tue, 2023-05-23 at 17:16 +0200, Lukas Wunner wrote: > > > > > + dev_err(&chip->dev, HW_ERR > > > > > + "TPM interrupt storm detected, polling instead\n"); > > > > > > > > Should this be dev_warn or even dev_info level? > > > > > > The corresponding message emitted in tpm_tis_core_init() for > > > an interrupt that's *never* asserted uses dev_err(), so using > > > dev_err() here as well serves consistency: > > > > > > dev_err(&chip->dev, FW_BUG > > > "TPM interrupt not working, polling instead\n"); > > > > > > That way the same severity is used both for the never asserted and > > > the never deasserted interrupt case. > > > > Oh, OK. > > Is there anything the user can do to have a ERROR less boot? > > You're right that the user can't do anything about it and that > toning the message down to KERN_WARN or even KERN_NOTICE severity > may be appropriate. > > However the above-quoted message for the never asserted interrupt > in tpm_tis_core_init() should then likewise be toned down to the > same severity. > > I'm wondering why that message uses FW_BUG. That doesn't make any > sense to me. It's typically not a firmware bug, but a hardware issue, > e.g. an interrupt pin may erroneously not be connected or may be > connected to ground. Lino used HW_ERR, which seems more appropriate > to me. Firmware is responsible for configuring gpios and interrupts correctly, independently of it being a design decision or a mistake. AIUI any interrupt storm could be prevented by firmware in any case by simply disabling that interrupt. Thus, FW_BUG is the right thing to use here IMO.
