2022-05-17 00:38:55

by Michael Niewöhner

Subject: [PATCH] ACPI: utils: include UUID in _DSM evaluation warning

The _DSM evaluation warning in its current form is not very helpful, as
it lacks any specific information:
  ACPI: \: failed to evaluate _DSM (0x1001)

Thus, include the UUID of the missing _DSM:
  ACPI: \: failed to evaluate _DSM bf0212f2-... (0x1001)

Signed-off-by: Michael Niewöhner <[email protected]>
---
 drivers/acpi/utils.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/utils.c b/drivers/acpi/utils.c
index d5cedffeeff9..7da993f5b6c3 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/utils.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/utils.c
@@ -681,7 +681,8 @@ acpi_evaluate_dsm(acpi_handle handle, const guid_t *guid,
u64 rev, u64 func,
 
        if (ret != AE_NOT_FOUND)
                acpi_handle_warn(handle,
-                               "failed to evaluate _DSM (0x%x)\n", ret);
+                               "failed to evaluate _DSM %pUb (0x%x)\n",
+                               ret, guid);
 
        return NULL;
 }
--
2.34.1

2022-05-18 01:14:22

by Michael Niewöhner

Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: utils: include UUID in _DSM evaluation warning

On Tue, 2022-05-17 at 16:49 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 7:25 PM Michael Niewöhner <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > The _DSM evaluation warning in its current form is not very helpful, as
> > it lacks any specific information:
> >   ACPI: \: failed to evaluate _DSM (0x1001)
> >
> > Thus, include the UUID of the missing _DSM:
> >   ACPI: \: failed to evaluate _DSM bf0212f2-... (0x1001)
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Michael Niewöhner <[email protected]>
> > ---
> >  drivers/acpi/utils.c | 3 ++-
> >  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/utils.c b/drivers/acpi/utils.c
> > index d5cedffeeff9..7da993f5b6c3 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/utils.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/utils.c
> > @@ -681,7 +681,8 @@ acpi_evaluate_dsm(acpi_handle handle, const guid_t
> > *guid,
> > u64 rev, u64 func,
> >
> >         if (ret != AE_NOT_FOUND)
> >                 acpi_handle_warn(handle,
> > -                               "failed to evaluate _DSM (0x%x)\n", ret);
> > +                               "failed to evaluate _DSM %pUb (0x%x)\n",
> > +                               ret, guid);
>
> Shouldn't this be "guid, ret" ?

Ouch, yes ofc.

> Also, don't you want to print the
> value of the GUID rather than the address of its location?

Not sure what you mean tbh. Documentation/core-api/printk-formats.rst states
%pUb being the right format. lib/test_printf.c implements it that way, too.

>
> And I don't think you need to break the line here.
>
> >
> >         return NULL;
> >  }
> > --
> > 2.34.1
> >
> >

2022-05-18 03:40:54

by Rafael J. Wysocki

Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: utils: include UUID in _DSM evaluation warning

On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 7:25 PM Michael Niewöhner <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The _DSM evaluation warning in its current form is not very helpful, as
> it lacks any specific information:
> ACPI: \: failed to evaluate _DSM (0x1001)
>
> Thus, include the UUID of the missing _DSM:
> ACPI: \: failed to evaluate _DSM bf0212f2-... (0x1001)
>
> Signed-off-by: Michael Niewöhner <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/utils.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/utils.c b/drivers/acpi/utils.c
> index d5cedffeeff9..7da993f5b6c3 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/utils.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/utils.c
> @@ -681,7 +681,8 @@ acpi_evaluate_dsm(acpi_handle handle, const guid_t *guid,
> u64 rev, u64 func,
>
> if (ret != AE_NOT_FOUND)
> acpi_handle_warn(handle,
> - "failed to evaluate _DSM (0x%x)\n", ret);
> + "failed to evaluate _DSM %pUb (0x%x)\n",
> + ret, guid);

Shouldn't this be "guid, ret" ? Also, don't you want to print the
value of the GUID rather than the address of its location?

And I don't think you need to break the line here.

>
> return NULL;
> }
> --
> 2.34.1
>
>

2022-05-18 04:26:54

by Rafael J. Wysocki

Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: utils: include UUID in _DSM evaluation warning

On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 8:26 PM Michael Niewöhner <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2022-05-17 at 16:49 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 7:25 PM Michael Niewöhner <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > The _DSM evaluation warning in its current form is not very helpful, as
> > > it lacks any specific information:
> > > ACPI: \: failed to evaluate _DSM (0x1001)
> > >
> > > Thus, include the UUID of the missing _DSM:
> > > ACPI: \: failed to evaluate _DSM bf0212f2-... (0x1001)
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Michael Niewöhner <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/acpi/utils.c | 3 ++-
> > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/utils.c b/drivers/acpi/utils.c
> > > index d5cedffeeff9..7da993f5b6c3 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/acpi/utils.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/utils.c
> > > @@ -681,7 +681,8 @@ acpi_evaluate_dsm(acpi_handle handle, const guid_t
> > > *guid,
> > > u64 rev, u64 func,
> > >
> > > if (ret != AE_NOT_FOUND)
> > > acpi_handle_warn(handle,
> > > - "failed to evaluate _DSM (0x%x)\n", ret);
> > > + "failed to evaluate _DSM %pUb (0x%x)\n",
> > > + ret, guid);
> >
> > Shouldn't this be "guid, ret" ?
>
> Ouch, yes ofc.
>
> > Also, don't you want to print the
> > value of the GUID rather than the address of its location?
>
> Not sure what you mean tbh. Documentation/core-api/printk-formats.rst states
> %pUb being the right format. lib/test_printf.c implements it that way, too.

I missed that, sorry.