On 30.03.2021 21:56, Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Sun, Mar 07, 2021 at 10:34:25PM +0100, Heiner Kallweit wrote: >> On 07.03.2021 19:27, Krzysztof Wilczyński wrote: >>> Hi Heiner, >>> >>>> Realtek RTL8169/8168/8125 NIC families indicate VPD capability and an >>>> optional VPD EEPROM can be connected via I2C/SPI. However I haven't >>>> seen any card or system with such a VPD EEPROM yet. The missing EEPROM >>>> causes the following warning whenever e.g. lscpi -vv is executed. >>>> >>>> invalid short VPD tag 00 at offset 01 >>>> >>>> The warning confuses users, I think we should handle the situation more >>>> gentle. Therefore, if first VPD byte is read as 0x00, assume a missing >>>> optional VPD PROM as and silently set the VPD length to 0. >>> [...] >>> >>> True. I saw people on different forum and IRC asking for clarification >>> assuming their NIC broke, or that something is wrong, so this would >>> indeed save them some worry, nice! >>> >>> Having said that, I also saw this particular warning showing up for some >>> storage controllers (often some SAS cards), so a question here: would it >>> warrant adding a pci_dbg() with an appropriate message rather than just >>> returning 0? I wonder if this might be useful for someone who is trying >>> to troubleshoot and/or debug some issues with their device. >>> >>> What do you think? >>> >> I don't have a strong opinion here, but yes, that's something we could do. > > How about if we just downgrade the pci_warn() to a pci_info()? > pci_info() would still expose a quite cryptic message to users and leave them with the question whether something is wrong. If in case of VPD tag 00 a message is desired, I'd say it should be rephrased to something like: "VPD tag 00 at offset 01, assuming missing optional VPD EPROM"
