Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 16 Dec 2013 08:01:11 -0500 | From | Prarit Bhargava <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] Introduce FW_INFO* functions and messages |
| |
Sorry everyone, I was out on PTO for the past few weeks.
On 12/06/2013 07:30 AM, Matt Fleming wrote: > On Thu, 05 Dec, at 07:55:03AM, Joe Perches wrote: >> On Thu, 2013-12-05 at 11:30 +0000, Matt Fleming wrote: >>> On Wed, 04 Dec, at 07:22:57PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>>> The other part I noticed about this particular patchset is that it's >>>> not really "firmware" as such, but specifically PC wiht ACPI that >>>> gets covered here. So rather than generalizing the code, another >>>> option would be to narrow down the scope and make it >>>> acpi_{warn,info,dbg} instead. >>> >>> Making this specific to ACPI runs the risk of people introducing a >>> multitude of new logging functions for every subsystem, e.g. >>> efi_{warn,info,dbg}. >> >> There are many subsystem specific logging functions: > > Surely that's further justification to not introduce any more.
That's what I was thinking when I saw this discussion.
> >>> FWIW, I'd be interested in using something like this patch series to >>> properly log EFI implementation bugs. The logging for EFI is currently >>> done fairly haphazardly. >> >> I thought that was the point of embedding the existing >> FW_INFO, FW_WARN and FW_BUG #defines in formats. >> >> Using logging message scraping to find faults is not >> a great approach as message content is subject to change. > > I wasn't planning on using them to scrape the kernel logs, just for more > informative messages.
Exactly. That's the whole point here -- the only mechanism that exists for tracking firwmare related issues, like it or not, is the kernel log/dmesg/boot log/whatever we're calling it these days. It's been done this way since the beginning of time.
The problem I'm trying to solve, and as Andrew commented on, is a *real* problem. The information we currently dump out is not useful to anyone.
Could this be expanded to other subsystems? Yes, without question. It's actually the ACPI and PCI subsystems that I want to target next, however, both of those will require a base change to FW_{INFO|WARN|BUG} to at least get us a starting point.
P.
>
|  |