PJ Waskiewicz wrote: > 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. All that one did is annotate all cxl_acpi driver error messages with "FW_BUG", if that's useful then yeah that patch [1] can be considered. [1]: http://lore.kernel.org/r/6614575a1c15c_2583ad29476@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.notmuch
