In subject:
s/allow the/Allow the/ to match drivers/acpi capitalization convention
s/_PSR/_PRS/ to fix typo
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 09:43:44PM -0800, Alex Hung wrote:
> In recent Intel hardware the IRQs become non-configurable after BIOS
> initializes them in PEI phase and _PRS objects are no longer included in
> ASL.
>
> This is the same as "static (non-configurable) devices do not
> specify a _PRS object" in ACPI spec. As a result, error messages
> saying "ACPI Exception: AE_NOT_FOUND, Evaluating _PRS" does not need to
> be in kernel messenges all the time but only when debug is enabled, and
> acpi_pci_link_get_possible should not return -ENODEV when _PRS is
> absent.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alex Hung <alex.hung@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Acked-by: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/pci_link.c | 4 ++--
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> index bc3d914..65f1908 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pci_link.c
> @@ -173,8 +173,8 @@ static int acpi_pci_link_get_possible(struct acpi_pci_link *link)
> status = acpi_walk_resources(link->device->handle, METHOD_NAME__PRS,
> acpi_pci_link_check_possible, link);
> if (ACPI_FAILURE(status)) {
> - ACPI_EXCEPTION((AE_INFO, status, "Evaluating _PRS"));
> - return -ENODEV;
> + acpi_handle_debug(link->device->handle, "_PRS not present or invalid");
The rest of this file uses ACPI_EXCEPTION(), ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT(), etc.
My personal preference would be to keep the file consistent, e.g.,
maybe use the style that matches the file in this patch, and have a
second patch that changes all the logging in the file to use
acpi_handle_*().
But I'm fine with whatever you and Rafael want to do about this.
> + return 0;
> }
>
> ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_INFO,
> --
> 2.7.4
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
