[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20091126051036.GA12086@kryten>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:10:36 +1100
From: Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>
To: Gautham R Shenoy <ego@...ibm.com>
Cc: Nathan Fontenot <nfont@...tin.ibm.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@....ibm.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Arun R Bharadwaj <arun@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/4] pSeries: Add hooks to put the CPU into an
appropriate offline state
Hi Gautham,
> + call_status = rtas_call(rtas_token("ibm,get-system-parameter"), 3, 1,
> + NULL,
> + CEDE_LATENCY_TOKEN,
> + __pa(cede_parameters),
> + CEDE_LATENCY_PARAM_MAX_LENGTH);
> +
> + if (call_status != 0)
> + printk(KERN_INFO "CEDE_LATENCY: \
> + %s %s Error calling get-system-parameter(0x%x)\n",
> + __FILE__, __func__, call_status);
> + else
> + printk(KERN_INFO "CEDE_LATENCY: \
> + get-system-parameter successful.\n");
I'm seeing this on a POWER6 box:
CEDE_LATENCY: arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/hotplug-cpu.c parse_cede_parameters Error calling get-system-parameter(0xfffffffd)
Seems overly verbose. Do we need to print success/fail on this call? Perhaps
a summary line if anything during initialisation failed:
Cede latency not supported
and
Cede latency supported
If it all worked.
Anton
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists