From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Matthew Garrett Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI video: Be more liberal in validating _BQC behaviour Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2010 17:38:36 +0000 Message-ID: <20100222173836.GA24808@srcf.ucam.org> References: <1266357230-10602-1-git-send-email-mjg@redhat.com> <201002221824.16920.trenn@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from cavan.codon.org.uk ([93.93.128.6]:56419 "EHLO cavan.codon.org.uk" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752344Ab0BVRii (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Feb 2010 12:38:38 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201002221824.16920.trenn@suse.de> Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Thomas Renninger Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, lenb@kernel.org, rui.zhang@intel.com On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 06:24:16PM +0100, Thomas Renninger wrote: > Can you use: > printk(KERN_WARNING FW_WARN "%s returned an invalid level", buf); > instead please. > It would be great if major kernel contributors, especially those working > near the BIOS do make use of the FW_* strings more often! I could, but I don't see there being any real benefit in doing so while the rest of the file doesn't make use of it. It seems like a reasonable thing to do in a followup patch. > Cleaning up existing messages is one (work intensive) thing, but please > use it to identify new BIOS issues. This is just moving an existing warning, rather than adding a new issue. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@srcf.ucam.org