Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 22 Feb 2018 15:17:38 -0800 | From | Jeremy McNicoll <> | Subject | Re: [07/18] thunderbolt: Handle rejected Thunderbolt devices |
| |
On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 08:00:07PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote: > The ICM firmware may reject devices for different reasons, even if we > have asked it to accept anything. If we notice a device is rejected, we > just log the event and bail out. > > Signed-off-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com> > --- > drivers/thunderbolt/icm.c | 6 ++++++ > drivers/thunderbolt/tb_msgs.h | 1 + > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/thunderbolt/icm.c b/drivers/thunderbolt/icm.c > index 611d28e8e5f2..34d7740d1cbd 100644 > --- a/drivers/thunderbolt/icm.c > +++ b/drivers/thunderbolt/icm.c > @@ -410,6 +410,12 @@ icm_fr_device_connected(struct tb *tb, const struct icm_pkg_header *hdr) > ICM_LINK_INFO_DEPTH_SHIFT; > authorized = pkg->link_info & ICM_LINK_INFO_APPROVED; > > + if (pkg->link_info & ICM_LINK_INFO_REJECTED) { > + tb_info(tb, "switch at %u.%u was rejected by ICM firmware\n", > + link, depth);
This kind of condition sounds more like an error instead of info. Please bump this up to tb_WARN/tb_warn ideally tb_err().
BTW - why do we have tb_WARN and tb_warn in drivers/thunderbolt/tb.h ?
-jeremy
> + return; > + } > + > ret = icm->get_route(tb, link, depth, &route); > if (ret) { > tb_err(tb, "failed to find route string for switch at %u.%u\n", > diff --git a/drivers/thunderbolt/tb_msgs.h b/drivers/thunderbolt/tb_msgs.h > index b0a092baa605..476bc04cac6c 100644 > --- a/drivers/thunderbolt/tb_msgs.h > +++ b/drivers/thunderbolt/tb_msgs.h > @@ -176,6 +176,7 @@ struct icm_fr_event_device_connected { > #define ICM_LINK_INFO_DEPTH_SHIFT 4 > #define ICM_LINK_INFO_DEPTH_MASK GENMASK(7, 4) > #define ICM_LINK_INFO_APPROVED BIT(8) > +#define ICM_LINK_INFO_REJECTED BIT(9) > > struct icm_fr_pkg_approve_device { > struct icm_pkg_header hdr;
| |