On Wed, 2024-05-01 at 08:47 -0700, Dan Williams wrote: > PJ Waskiewicz wrote: > > Buggy BIOS, that above value resolves to CX02. In fact, it > > *should* be > > 49. This is very much a bug in the ACPI arena. > > Ok, so back to this patch in question, my concern with upgrading: > > dev_err(dev, "unable to retrieve _UID\n"); > > ...to say "potentially buggy BIOS", is that same charge could be > levied > against all of the dev_warn() and dev_err() instances in > drivers/cxl/acpi.c. So, it's not clear to me that cxl_acpi driver > failures need to be more explicit. > > Otherwise, pretty much any ACPI hiccup message in the kernel would be > candidate for claiming "BIOS is busted". I really do like your patch you proposed a few weeks back. I'm happy to pull that and test it if you'd like to move forward on that instead. Personally, I think the amount of discussion generated around this simple "the BIOS is broken" should warrant some level of change to help others not in-the-know to understand why their shiny new CXL devices fell over on init. Whatever that change looks like though, I'm not married to any particular approach. -PJ
