Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752199AbcD3XNw (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Apr 2016 19:13:52 -0400 Received: from relay3-d.mail.gandi.net ([217.70.183.195]:35417 "EHLO relay3-d.mail.gandi.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751472AbcD3XNu (ORCPT ); Sat, 30 Apr 2016 19:13:50 -0400 X-Originating-IP: 50.39.163.18 Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 16:13:41 -0700 From: Josh Triplett To: Matt Fleming Cc: Josh Boyer , =?iso-8859-1?Q?M=F4she?= van der Sterre , "linux-efi@vger.kernel.org" , "Linux-Kernel@Vger. Kernel. Org" , Colin Ian King , Ricardo Neri Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/efi-bgrt: Switch all pr_err() to pr_debug() for invalid BGRT Message-ID: <20160430231341.GA18955@x> 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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160430223514.GP2839@codeblueprint.co.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2043 Lines: 42 On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 11:35:14PM +0100, 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. Fine. What's the highest priority message that will *not* cause splash screens to go into text mode? With the default boot argument of "quiet", pr_notice or pr_info should still remain hidden, right? So, could we make these pr_notice, rather than pr_debug? That way they'll at least show up in logs, even though they don't show up on the console. > 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. BITS doesn't, but should; I've added it to the TODO list. - Josh Triplett