On 31.03.2021 13:14, Heiner Kallweit wrote: > 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" > I submitted a v2 with this change.
