Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <f80dfd57fdca87897f070a3ea4ee0a26b03e7831.camel@mniewoehner.de>
In-Reply-To: <f80dfd57fdca87897f070a3ea4ee0a26b03e7831.camel@mniewoehner.de>
From:   "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 17 May 2022 16:49:38 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0h+kKwdntGPC5PP6N0ZRbRzLxuwcwTGm-PNBH6Z3mnETg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: utils: include UUID in _DSM evaluation warning
To:     =?UTF-8?Q?Michael_Niew=C3=B6hner?= <linux@mniewoehner.de>
Cc:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
        "open list:ACPI" <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, May 16, 2022 at 7:25 PM Michael Niewöhner <linux@mniewoehner.de> 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 <linux@mniewoehner.de>
> ---
>  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
>
>