From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick Mochel Subject: Re: [PATCH] acpi: make message more descriptive/meaningful Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 10:18:09 -0800 Message-ID: <20060207181809.GA3692@linux.intel.com> References: <20060206192910.66cb9c86.rdunlap@xenotime.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from fmr17.intel.com ([134.134.136.16]:29408 "EHLO orsfmr002.jf.intel.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750995AbWBGSPT (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Feb 2006 13:15:19 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060206192910.66cb9c86.rdunlap@xenotime.net> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: "Randy.Dunlap" Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, len.brown@intel.com On Mon, Feb 06, 2006 at 07:29:10PM -0800, Randy.Dunlap wrote: > Identify which device is not power-manageable to make > the message more useful. > --- linux-2615-rc6g4.orig/drivers/acpi/bus.c > +++ linux-2615-rc6g4/drivers/acpi/bus.c > @@ -198,7 +198,8 @@ int acpi_bus_set_power(acpi_handle handl > > if (!device->flags.power_manageable) { > ACPI_DEBUG_PRINT((ACPI_DB_WARN, > - "Device is not power manageable\n")); > + "Device '%s' is not power manageable\n", > + device->kobj.name)); This is good information, but does it have to come in such a scary message? It appears that something is wrong with the device, when in fact, it just doesn't support an optional capability. Could we demote the message to e.g. ACPI_DB_INFO? Thanks, Patrick