Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752344AbcD3Wmr (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Apr 2016 18:42:47 -0400 Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]:54041 "EHLO youngberry.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752201AbcD3Wmp (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Apr 2016 18:42:45 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/efi-bgrt: Switch all pr_err() to pr_debug() for invalid BGRT To: Matt Fleming , Josh Boyer References: <1461761412-16046-1-git-send-email-jwboyer@fedoraproject.org> <5720BE0B.8080605@moshe.nl> <5720D365.5080601@moshe.nl> <20160427170525.GA1965@jtriplet-mobl2.jf.intel.com> <20160430223514.GP2839@codeblueprint.co.uk> Cc: Josh Triplett , =?UTF-8?Q?M=c3=b4she_van_der_Ster?= =?UTF-8?Q?re?= , "linux-efi@vger.kernel.org" , "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" , Ricardo Neri From: Colin Ian King Message-ID: <572534E2.4010705@canonical.com> Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 23:42:42 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160430223514.GP2839@codeblueprint.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1718 Lines: 38 On 30/04/16 23:35, Matt Fleming wrote: > (Adding Colin and Ricardo) > > On Wed, 27 Apr, at 01:23:55PM, Josh Boyer wrote: >> >> How is an end user supposed to see such a message and report it to the >> people that can fix it? They can't. So they report it in their >> distributions bug tracker and it either gets closed as "yeah, firmware >> sucks" or it sits there and rots in the hope that some day someone >> will do something. >> >> I understand where you're coming from in a pre-production, development >> environment but to be quite clear that is not the default environment >> Linux is run in most of the time. If this were a kernel warning, that >> could be fixed with a kernel patch, then maybe it would be worth it. >> It isn't though. > > If the error messages in the BGRT driver make it impossible for end > users to achieve a pretty boot experience then I agree, that is a > kernel bug. BGRT is an exception to the usual rule about complaining > loudly when we encounter firmware bugs simply because we're dealing > with UIs in this case. > > That's not to say we should give up reporting these kinds of invalid > table issues to firmware developers altogether. There are other means > of doing it, and comprising the wants of many end users for the > benefit of few firmware developers (relatively) is just not sensible. > > Colin, Ricardo, I haven't checked recently, are there ACPI BGRT > validations tests in FWTS and LUV? Josh (Triplett), BITS would seem > like a very good place to include these tests since it already has a > bunch of ACPI table checks. > fwts does have a BGRT test, although it is fairly trivial: http://kernel.ubuntu.com/git/hwe/fwts.git/tree/src/acpi/bgrt/bgrt.c Colin