Re: [PATCH 1/4] ppc/pnv: Suppress some "pnv_chiptod unimplemented register" messages

[Caleb Schlossin <calebs@linux.ibm.com>]

On 1/19/26 4:18 AM, Aditya Gupta wrote:
> On 26/01/06 11:07AM, Caleb Schlossin wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/6/26 10:49 AM, Miles Glenn wrote:
>>> Hi Caleb.  I wonder if it makes sense to upstream this commit since I
>>> suspect that most upstream users will not have the "unimp" log messages
>>> enabled unless they are debugging a problem and in that case, we would
>>> be erroneously masking these unimplemented registers from the logged
>>> output.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Glenn
>>
>> I understand your point. Here are my thoughts:
>> - Cleaning up these logs for valid accesses (PowerVM bringup and development) reduces the overall log output and helps find real errors
>> - In the future, there may be a customer that wants to run PowerVM with upstream QEMU. The more we upstream, the easier that will be.
>> - In the future, we are going to have a number of cases like this where we accept accesses and don't log for every unimp access (to clean up log output). If we choose to keep those patches private and don't upstream them it's going to increase the number of private patches we keep, making future rebasing more difficult.
>> - I'd prefer to upstream more patches, and focus on keeping only the patches we need to private (for confidentiality or other reasons). To make future rebasing easier.
> 
> I agree with Glenn that we shouldn't mask these warnings for everyone.
> 
> Since a warning saying a feature is unimplemented is better than
> silently not doing anything without any warnings.
> 
> Maybe the excessive warnings should only be masked for PowerMV
> development work, rather than upstreaming, or we can always upstream
> once those are implemented.
> 
> - Aditya G
> 

Ok. Would you like me to pull out this patch from the series and send out v2 containing only the approved patches?

Thanks,
Caleb