From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: josh-iaAMLnmF4UmaiuxdJuQwMA@public.gmane.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't print an error on unsupported BGRT version. Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2015 11:23:08 -0700 Message-ID: <20150722182308.GA26620@cloud> References: <1437583253-29600-1-git-send-email-pjones@redhat.com> <20150722165357.GC1203@jtriplet-mobl1> <20150722170906.GA17419@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150722170906.GA17419-H+wXaHxf7aLQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Peter Jones Cc: linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Matt Fleming List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 01:09:06PM -0400, Peter Jones wrote: > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 09:53:57AM -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 12:40:53PM -0400, Peter Jones wrote: > > > BGRT can legitimately be a different version from what we support, and > > > that's a problem with the driver not supporting something, not an error > > > that needs to be surfaced to the user. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Jones > > > > Are you actually seeing this error on a real system? Or is this just a > > theoretical concern with some future version? > > Yeah, I have several systems where I see it every boot - and with > "quiet", it's the only message I see. In all cases the version is 0, > i.e. the code was written before it was included in the standard, and > it's a version the driver legitimately does not handle. Admittedly > these are mostly machines for developing UEFI on (including the Intel > S1200RP board with the UDK2014 B2 firmware.) But the fact is there are > systems you can *buy* which will show this as an error, and it really > isn't an error. It's just an earlier version than we support. We should support version 0. Is the structure layout and semantic the same? Could you submit a patch to handle version 0? > > While I agree that this doesn't need to be pr_err, I don't think > > pr_debug is appropriate either. It may mean the driver needs updating, > > or it may mean that a system in the wild is actually broken and has an > > invalid version number. I'd prefer at least pr_warn so that people see > > it and report it, but I could live with pr_notice; that should hide it > > from systems booting in quiet mode, while still having it in the log > > even on non-debug kernels. > > I'd be okay with pr_notice. I'll send a follow-up. If we can handle 0, I'd prefer to do that and then have a pr_warn for versions other than 0 and 1. - Josh Triplett