| Message ID | 20170721145147.7572-1-jprvita@endlessm.com |
|---|---|
| State | Awaiting Upstream, archived |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 07:51 -0700, João Paulo Rechi Vita wrote: > These messages are not reporting a real error, just the fact that the > firmware knows about more flags then the driver. > > Currently these messages are presented to the user during boot if there > is no bootsplash covering the console, sometimes even if the boot splash > is enabled but has not started yet by the time this message is shown. > > Demoting it to the info level helps having a clean boot process. > > Signed-off-by: João Paulo Rechi Vita <jprvita@endlessm.com> > --- The idea with this error is that if the firmware is too new and includes a TLV that we are not aware of, there can be unexpected issues. For instance, sometimes the FW API changes some of its structures and we use TLVs to know which one to use. If a new struct is in use by the firmware but not by the driver, problems will occur. Recently we accidentally omitted one TLV from the driver and released a new firmware that had it set... That's the error you are currently seeing. We have a bugzilla entry[1] and it is fixed in our internal tree. The fix will be sent upstream in the next -fixes round we send out. This specific case is harmless, but I'd rather keep this message as an error, because in other situations it could lead to unexpected behavioir, so I prefer to keep it very visible. [1] https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=196195 -- Cheers, Luca.
Hello Luca, On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 4:01 AM, Coelho, Luciano <luciano.coelho@intel.com> wrote: > On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 07:51 -0700, João Paulo Rechi Vita wrote: (...) >> Currently these messages are presented to the user during boot if there >> is no bootsplash covering the console, sometimes even if the boot splash >> is enabled but has not started yet by the time this message is shown. >> I should have provided another piece of information here: all of this happens even when booting with the 'quiet' kernel parameter. > This specific case is harmless, but I'd rather keep this message as an > error, because in other situations it could lead to unexpected > behavioir, so I prefer to keep it very visible. > > I see your point, and I understand the purpose of these messages. I'm wondering if perhaps having them at the warning level would give them enough visibility, while still keeping a clean boot process to the end user. If so, I can send an updated patch. Thanks for your reply and for pointing to the fix for the root cause of that message. Cheers, ...................................................................................... João Paulo Rechi Vita | +1.415.851.5778 | Endless
Hi João Paulo, On Tue, 2017-08-01 at 15:58 -0700, João Paulo Rechi Vita wrote: > Hello Luca, > > On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 4:01 AM, Coelho, Luciano > <luciano.coelho@intel.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 2017-07-21 at 07:51 -0700, João Paulo Rechi Vita wrote: > > (...) > > > > Currently these messages are presented to the user during boot if there > > > is no bootsplash covering the console, sometimes even if the boot splash > > > is enabled but has not started yet by the time this message is shown. > > > > > I should have provided another piece of information here: all of this > happens even when booting with the 'quiet' kernel parameter. Oh, okay, that's annoying. > > This specific case is harmless, but I'd rather keep this message as an > > error, because in other situations it could lead to unexpected > > behavioir, so I prefer to keep it very visible. > > > > > > I see your point, and I understand the purpose of these messages. I'm > wondering if perhaps having them at the warning level would give them > enough visibility, while still keeping a clean boot process to the end > user. If so, I can send an updated patch. > > Thanks for your reply and for pointing to the fix for the root cause > of that message. Sure, I agree it's better to make it use IWL_WARN(), which will generate a dev_warn() instead of a dev_err(). -- Cheers, Luca.
diff --git a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/iwl-drv.c b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/iwl-drv.c index 6fdb5921e17f..557acd43d705 100644 --- a/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/iwl-drv.c +++ b/drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/iwl-drv.c @@ -487,9 +487,9 @@ static int iwl_set_ucode_api_flags(struct iwl_drv *drv, const u8 *data, int i; if (api_index >= DIV_ROUND_UP(NUM_IWL_UCODE_TLV_API, 32)) { - IWL_ERR(drv, - "api flags index %d larger than supported by driver\n", - api_index); + IWL_INFO(drv, + "api flags index %d larger than supported by driver\n", + api_index); /* don't return an error so we can load FW that has more bits */ return 0; } @@ -511,9 +511,9 @@ static int iwl_set_ucode_capabilities(struct iwl_drv *drv, const u8 *data, int i; if (api_index >= DIV_ROUND_UP(NUM_IWL_UCODE_TLV_CAPA, 32)) { - IWL_ERR(drv, - "capa flags index %d larger than supported by driver\n", - api_index); + IWL_INFO(drv, + "capa flags index %d larger than supported by driver\n", + api_index); /* don't return an error so we can load FW that has more bits */ return 0; }
These messages are not reporting a real error, just the fact that the firmware knows about more flags then the driver. Currently these messages are presented to the user during boot if there is no bootsplash covering the console, sometimes even if the boot splash is enabled but has not started yet by the time this message is shown. Demoting it to the info level helps having a clean boot process. Signed-off-by: João Paulo Rechi Vita <jprvita@endlessm.com> --- drivers/net/wireless/intel/iwlwifi/iwl-drv.c | 12 ++++++------ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)