[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4E0151A0.90505@intel.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 10:21:20 +0800
From: Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: Matthew Garrett <mjg59@...f.ucam.org>
CC: Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@...el.com>,
"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] ACPI, APEI, Add APEI _OSC support
On 06/21/2011 09:22 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 03:16:27PM +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
>
>> + rc = apei_osc_setup();
>> + if (rc)
>> + pr_info(GHES_PFX "Evaluate APEI _OSC failed!\n");
>
> Hm. This is maybe a little strong. It'd be valid for a machine to return
> an error here but still have the GHES functionality enabled via the
> generic call, but this message would still show up and potentially
> confuse the user. Can we keep a flag to check whether the generic method
> gave us control, and only give the error if both fail to enable it?
At least on some of my testing machine, generic _OSC call will not
return any error even it does not support APEI bit. So I think
sometimes it may be helpful to printk something here. To avoid
confusion, can we change the message as follow.
- generic _OSC succeeded, APEI _OSC failed: APEI firmware first mode is
enabled by APEI bit.
- generic _OSC failed, APEI _OSC succeeded: APEI firmware first mode is
enabled by APEI _OSC.
- both succeeded: APEI firmware first mode is enabled by APEI bit and
APEI _OSC.
- both failed: Failed to enable APEI firmware first mode!
Best Regards,
Huang Ying
--
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