[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52E6F9B9.1070900@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 01:28:41 +0100
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>
CC: Jorg Otte <jrg.otte@...il.com>,
Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <hmh@....eng.br>,
"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: reduce log level for message "ACPI: \_PR_.CPU4:
failed to get CPU APIC ID"
On 1/28/2014 1:18 AM, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014, Jiang Liu wrote:
>
>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
>> index c9311be..c29c2c3 100644
>> --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
>> @@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int acpi_processor_get_info(struct acpi_device *device)
>>
>> apic_id = acpi_get_apicid(pr->handle, device_declaration, pr->acpi_id);
>> if (apic_id < 0) {
>> - acpi_handle_err(pr->handle, "failed to get CPU APIC ID.\n");
>> + acpi_handle_debug(pr->handle, "failed to get CPU APIC ID.\n");
>> return -ENODEV;
>> }
> Don't we already leave some artifact in the kernel log at boot about apic
> ids that don't get registered? I'm wondering if we should have this
> warning at all.
It is useful for knowing that there are potentially broken objects in
the ACPI tables.
--
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