[lkml]   [2013]   [Dec]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [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.



 \ /
  Last update: 2013-12-16 14:41    [W:0.090 / U:2.188 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site