From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-188.mta1.migadu.com (out-188.mta1.migadu.com [95.215.58.188]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96DB51DE3DC for ; Thu, 25 Sep 2025 17:52:29 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.188 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1758822755; cv=none; b=BHl2Ze8OIY3DNdL9MWTN5h5oW5iAyYQIh6V66iwvyk+a8rKBb65+tBsbW2M+uM7tbMGXbalwHRjSu2LHVdrTp7gvPQ4ad+S6S58hf6ko15iVuQunb+VK4XOeJT1t5HkQI1G5Jig4SCoSCj9aSMaToo4UIfw9i3gtX912JHCC0Yk= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1758822755; c=relaxed/simple; bh=149LhYTDHLpLp8554BrUviuksAp+figbNKDZxF/5+IM=; h=Mime-Version:Content-Type:Date:Message-Id:Cc:Subject:From:To: References:In-Reply-To; b=I5l+8U9Bvi0ktLazCoMNrOnTTsXHx4xrjx/BWhvBtp0hdDGLenXc+BDFhfLw08QrzQqfx5XrdXOtgSJP7RwxtwuRppjaWX9ytBfWGpevzsaFjl6i/NIbjYO/gk64Bm+iIOcULsbEMhGRZFqZ5AnnQ4ZUgCnOnKyd/WyBHDUKkIg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=cknow.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cknow.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cknow.org header.i=@cknow.org header.b=EMq1VUNs; arc=none smtp.client-ip=95.215.58.188 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=cknow.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=cknow.org Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cknow.org header.i=@cknow.org header.b="EMq1VUNs" Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Mime-Version: 1.0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cknow.org; s=key1; t=1758822747; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=IB9yQNRgVuz8m2m/oI2qa6ls/IWIUCOFdQtE6J/rfIA=; b=EMq1VUNsJcP9snVahb7nKoWpXIaDE41gqDWsbAG4yWY8Rnu1rMo2FDoiKi/9dfZarIh/+m LL+7sHuW/hw2dFQgEiTMq8vIfTKXyby5P9trym8R8wVkzGXGV+/2ggIAG+J8T2nqPOeWCx I9ulU++zscOBm+xM54yiJckom9/K9rvw6go4Wjs40pw0Q66AUVt3DsUEhXU5UnpNatT2sH qew11Tjar4NMmOBj2Ro8RcgCmPRTE9RYc+st28XVeUMh4kruDtkgh0Xjzs/qFt1sWHCd8Z zDJY9AO0tox9pwPXH+P2KTHVOaFxbGFCWZyv0V/fjzMbVfcJrR+53XJ2McAOEg== Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary=a357dd026792ca33492dc6fb0c6b8bf0ccfe6b9c80285818675682e9f5be; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2025 19:52:11 +0200 Message-Id: Cc: "Saravana Kannan" , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , "Greg Kroah-Hartman" , , "Geert Uytterhoeven" , "Nicolas Frattaroli" , "Heiko Stuebner" , "Sebastian Reichel" , "Sebin Francis" , "Tomi Valkeinen" , "Jon Hunter" , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] driver core: fw_devlink: Don't warn in fw_devlink_dev_sync_state() X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: "Diederik de Haas" To: "Ulf Hansson" References: <20250925115924.188257-1-ulf.hansson@linaro.org> In-Reply-To: X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT --a357dd026792ca33492dc6fb0c6b8bf0ccfe6b9c80285818675682e9f5be Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu Sep 25, 2025 at 4:26 PM CEST, Ulf Hansson wrote: > On Thu, 25 Sept 2025 at 15:59, Diederik de Haas w= rote: >> On Thu Sep 25, 2025 at 1:59 PM CEST, Ulf Hansson wrote: >> > Due to the wider deployment of the ->sync_state() support, for PM doma= ins >> > for example, we are receiving reports about the messages that are bein= g >> > logged in fw_devlink_dev_sync_state(). In particular as they are at th= e >> > warning level, which doesn't seem correct. >> > >> > Even if it certainly is useful to know that the ->sync_state() conditi= on >> > could not be met, there may be nothing wrong with it. For example, a d= river >> > may be built as module and are still waiting to be initialized/probed. >> >> "there may be nothing wrong with it" doesn't sound very convincing. >> So there *can* be something wrong with it, so warning sounds >> appropriate? If there is (certainly) something wrong with it, I expect >> an error. > > Sorry if I was too vague. See more below. > >> FWIW: most of my drivers/modules are built as modules. >> I do seem to run into 'problems' more then average because of that, but >> to me it just signals there is something wrong ... which should be >> fixed. Not silenced. > > Well, why is it wrong to have drivers being built as modules? They Nothing wrong with it at all. It just means I notice issues (like [1]) that others may not who have modules built-in. [1] a52dffaa46c2 ("drm/rockchip: vop2: make vp registers nonvolatile") > just happen to be probed at some point later, then why should we have > warnings printed in the log due to this? I thought the failure of the check was more important then it apparently is. Then warning about it does seem excessive. Cheers, Diederik --a357dd026792ca33492dc6fb0c6b8bf0ccfe6b9c80285818675682e9f5be Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iHUEABYKAB0WIQT1sUPBYsyGmi4usy/XblvOeH7bbgUCaNWBUwAKCRDXblvOeH7b bhxxAQCeedjuz7MzbGyk41Q/ap7bH+8LHheMRHyOxpn9SezY7AD+KZApBH0xFnE/ 3+O2yoRG+dre2ZIK4DMmnaaZXvwd8QM= =3Rfs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --a357dd026792ca33492dc6fb0c6b8bf0ccfe6b9c80285818675682e9f5be--