Demote this warning to an info because the failure is expected and we
can work around it. The self-test will still error afterwards in case of
failure.
Signed-off-by: Roland Hieber <r.hieber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 08:49:58AM +0100, Sascha Hauer wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 11:52:26AM +0100, Roland Hieber wrote:
> > Hi Sascha,
> >
> > > + pr_notice("RNG software self-test passed\n");
> >
> > I noticed that you downgraded this to a pr_info() when applying the
> > patch, is there a reason? pr_warn()s have the "WARNING:" prefix,
> > pr_notice()s have a "NOTICE:" prefix, but pr_info()s don't have any
> > prefix. I think this one should be a pr_notice because it overrides the
> > pr_warn("RNG self-test failure detected...") from HAB and tells the user
> > that this warning is no longer relevant. With pr_info(), I think it will
> > get lost between all the other infos.
>
> I can follow this argumentation, but then I argue we should lower the
> priority of the failure detected message to to pr_info or even pr_debug,
> because the failure is pretty much expected, it is correctly being
> worked around and there's nothing we can do about the failure.
Right, that argumentation seems more reasonable to me.
- Roland
---
drivers/hab/habv4.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/hab/habv4.c b/drivers/hab/habv4.c
index bab458ae32..cca46c1490 100644
--- a/drivers/hab/habv4.c
+++ b/drivers/hab/habv4.c
@@ -455,7 +455,7 @@ static int habv4_get_status(const struct habv4_rvt *rvt)
}
if (is_rng_fail_event) {
- pr_warning("RNG self-test failure detected, will run software self-test\n");
+ pr_info("RNG self-test failure detected, will run software self-test\n");
habv4_need_rng_software_self_test = true;
} else {
pr_err("-------- HAB warning Event %d --------\n", index);
--
2.19.1
_______________________________________________
barebox mailing list
barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
