From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [198.137.202.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7AA1CCF9F0 for ; Thu, 30 Oct 2025 14:21:36 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=bombadil.20210309; h=Sender:List-Subscribe:List-Help :List-Post:List-Archive:List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Reply-To: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=8zVA+M1sfKufpTeMBphjot9y9XSTtsAPxfNjirFlyLw=; b=LYjjml5KDWZY03ca8DyUo0qfFH 6Co+msY5w9yLZDH01aTXHfhtjPEh1v6j9Ia5KnaIAC0zUkC0vZ1bvPStk/0b5cpj1nU2QwmtNn3lV Wi7TE4LAjm3UM9DLv6YPPdpiz19lnAUitWKkHZkkt4vM2hI6SH7nHTH3EOFLLZvCS6r8UAKo09NKD rK9vgCeeZ01DQdCqAFVOad3N2HnB7qJqq6pPNsG4bWNa0gsMdUmLw3FcP9Ygan6FBc1VDtq+my9LK TaJLnBvS/gOCTHceTL/K9zfgR/KLW3D4LAwTeDaeMRKbcQwItFUzniY01NVj4ORzvtpQZZqphyc9p dckhbh3Q==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=bombadil.infradead.org) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1vETWs-00000004IOX-3Tyy; Thu, 30 Oct 2025 14:21:30 +0000 Received: from sea.source.kernel.org ([2600:3c0a:e001:78e:0:1991:8:25]) by bombadil.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.98.2 #2 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1vETWp-00000004INo-2Wmb for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Thu, 30 Oct 2025 14:21:29 +0000 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (transwarp.subspace.kernel.org [100.75.92.58]) by sea.source.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC3E6455CD; Thu, 30 Oct 2025 14:21:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 54ECCC4CEF1; Thu, 30 Oct 2025 14:21:25 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1761834086; bh=G4M6X4ukwDdtK0M3gElM3SpfrsZYB877fp7JPIwFac0=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=EncVGbEkQp4nEz26sLKz19YEkza5kL/+obnQL00M6bZAmLviFtplJihyHuPaWc7/1 xbHh9bYuj2ycGagq353dm2l2u9sifvEr88rRUykBDEBky9JHgvptwXXB3xLWkXps1I mRU8/XHNiUKJIKcD1x4MIcKktwk2AKX7Dmbi15OCJFDq3D8KN7VprnmCRAgUSq2Fio 1pCjz5FaT/uXRVj6kpS0ilZlffdjgAArGcB3/aflFa16MC4yXlWmgLGiRVbv0h6o4S nXVynQ/Z/QaDiOdoVaNMasxUdIazgT20cL5p9ZnPa3/ya3xd0t38WgfHY9fL/RTJl0 ZOhsue35I2A+g== Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2025 14:21:21 +0000 From: Will Deacon To: Punit Agrawal Cc: catalin.marinas@arm.com, guohanjun@huawei.com, chenl311@chinatelecom.cn, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: acpi: Fix incorrect check for default console message Message-ID: References: <20251027141941.3089914-1-punit.agrawal@oss.qualcomm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20251027141941.3089914-1-punit.agrawal@oss.qualcomm.com> X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20251030_072128_634428_1F9F9171 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 15.51 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.34 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 02:19:41PM +0000, Punit Agrawal wrote: > bad3fa2fb920 ("ACPI: Suppress misleading SPCR console message when > SPCR table is absent") mistakenly assumes acpi_parse_spcr() returning > 0 to indicate a failure to parse SPCR and prints a message to the > kernel logs accordingly. In reality acpi_parse_spcr() returns 0 on > success and -ERRNO on failure. > > Fix the faulty check to output the correct logging message. > > Fixes: bad3fa2fb920 ("ACPI: Suppress misleading SPCR console message when SPCR table is absent") > Signed-off-by: Punit Agrawal > --- > Hi, > > After sending a patch to fix incorrect parsing of SPCR[0], I was still > seeing inconsistent logging on arm64. The result is this nugget. > > Considering the pointless churn - I wondered if it isn't better to > drop the message? If others agree, I can send a patch (and revert > bad3fa2fb920 while at it). I'd be happy dropping the message as it looks pretty useless to me, especially given that the current logic is broken. Will