From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Josh Triplett Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/efi-bgrt: Switch pr_err() to pr_debug() for invalid BGRT Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2015 07:00:22 -0700 Message-ID: <20150629140022.GA22374@x> References: <1435579602-6612-1-git-send-email-matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> <20150629131305.GB13113@pd.tnic> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150629131305.GB13113-fF5Pk5pvG8Y@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Borislav Petkov Cc: Matt Fleming , Tom Yan , Matthew Garrett , linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-acpi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Matt Fleming List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 03:13:05PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 01:06:42PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote: > > From: Matt Fleming > > > > It's totally legitimate, per the ACPI spec, for the firmware to set the > > BGRT 'status' field to zero to indicate that the BGRT image isn't being > > displayed, and we shouldn't be printing an error message in that case > > because it's just noise for users. So swap pr_err() for pr_debug(). > > > > However, Josh points that out it still makes sense to test the validity > > of the upper 7 bits of the 'status' field, since they're marked as > > "reserved" in the spec and must be zero. If firmware violates this it > > really *is* an error. > > Sounds to me this should be > > pr_warn(FW_WARN "... ); > > then, no? > > So that it hopefully gets caught at early testing when fw can still be > fixed...? > > Better yet FW_BUG even... Definitely not FW_BUG. The field is reserved *now*; it would be legitimate for a new version of the BGRT spec to define one of those bits for something else. - Josh Triplett