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]>
---
Changes in v2:
- fix arguments order
- fix indentation
- drop line break
drivers/acpi/utils.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/utils.c b/drivers/acpi/utils.c
index d5cedffeeff9..3a9773a09e19 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/utils.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/utils.c
@@ -681,7 +681,7 @@ 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", guid, ret);
return NULL;
}
--
2.34.1
On Tue, May 17, 2022 at 8:40 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]>
> ---
> Changes in v2:
> - fix arguments order
> - fix indentation
> - drop line break
>
> drivers/acpi/utils.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/utils.c b/drivers/acpi/utils.c
> index d5cedffeeff9..3a9773a09e19 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/utils.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/utils.c
> @@ -681,7 +681,7 @@ 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", guid, ret);
>
> return NULL;
> }
> --
Applied as 5.19 material, thanks!