[AMD Official Use Only - AMD Internal Distribution Only] Hi Rafael, Thanks for the advice, I think your proposed changes are also reasonable. Patch v3 has been sent, please review. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-acpi/20250512011833.142204-1-qiyuzhu2@xxxxxxx/ BRs Zhu Qiyu -----邮件原件----- 发件人: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> 发送时间: 2025年5月10日 2:44 收件人: Zhu, Qiyu <Qiyu.Zhu@xxxxxxx> 抄送: rafael@xxxxxxxxxx; lenb@xxxxxxxxxx; linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 主题: Re: [PATCH] ACPI:PRM: Reduce unnecessary printing to avoid the worries of regular users Caution: This message originated from an External Source. Use proper caution when opening attachments, clicking links, or responding. On Sun, Apr 27, 2025 at 9:54 AM Zhu Qiyu <qiyuzhu2@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Commit 088984c8d54c ("ACPI: PRM: Find EFI_MEMORY_RUNTIME block for PRM > handler and context") introduces non-essential printing "Failed to > find VA for GUID: 7626C6AE-F973-429C-A91C-107D7BE298B0, PA: 0x0" > which causes unnecessary worry for regular users. > > Refer to PRM Spec Section 4.1.2[1], both static data buffer address > and ACPI parameter buffer address may be NULL if they are not needed. > So there is no need to print out "Failed to find VA ... " to > intimidate regular users. > > Link: > https://uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/Platform%20Runtime%20Me > chanism%20-%20with%20legal%20notice.pdf # [1] > > Signed-off-by: Zhu Qiyu <qiyuzhu2@xxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/acpi/prmt.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- > 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/prmt.c b/drivers/acpi/prmt.c index > e549914a636c..fcd721559eb5 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/prmt.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/prmt.c > @@ -72,7 +72,20 @@ struct prm_module_info { > struct prm_handler_info handlers[] > __counted_by(handler_count); }; > > -static u64 efi_pa_va_lookup(efi_guid_t *guid, u64 pa) > +enum prm_addr_type { > + PRM_HANDLER_ADDR, > + PRM_STATIC_DATA_BUFFER_ADDR, > + PRM_ACPI_PARAM_BUFFER_ADDR, > + PRM_ADD_TYPE_MAX, > +}; > + > +static char *prm_addr_type_name[PRM_ADD_TYPE_MAX] = { > + "handler", > + "static data buffer", > + "acpi param buffer", > +}; > + > +static u64 efi_pa_va_lookup(efi_guid_t *guid, u64 pa, enum > +prm_addr_type type) > { > efi_memory_desc_t *md; > u64 pa_offset = pa & ~PAGE_MASK; @@ -85,7 +98,12 @@ static u64 > efi_pa_va_lookup(efi_guid_t *guid, u64 pa) > } > } > > - pr_warn("Failed to find VA for GUID: %pUL, PA: 0x%llx", guid, pa); Well, maybe just change the line above to something like: pr_info("VA for GUID: %pUL, PA: 0x%llx not found\n", guid, pa); which should look less intimidating? > + if (type == PRM_HANDLER_ADDR) > + pr_warn("Failed to find %s VA for GUID: %pUL, PA: 0x%llx", > + prm_addr_type_name[type], guid, pa); > + else > + pr_debug("Failed to find %s VA for GUID: %pUL, PA: 0x%llx", > + prm_addr_type_name[type], guid, pa); > > return 0; > } > @@ -153,13 +171,16 @@ acpi_parse_prmt(union acpi_subtable_headers > *header, const unsigned long end) > > guid_copy(&th->guid, (guid_t *)handler_info->handler_guid); > th->handler_addr = > - (void *)efi_pa_va_lookup(&th->guid, handler_info->handler_address); > + (void *)efi_pa_va_lookup(&th->guid, handler_info->handler_address, > + PRM_HANDLER_ADDR); > > th->static_data_buffer_addr = > - efi_pa_va_lookup(&th->guid, handler_info->static_data_buffer_address); > + efi_pa_va_lookup(&th->guid, handler_info->static_data_buffer_address, > + PRM_STATIC_DATA_BUFFER_ADDR); > > th->acpi_param_buffer_addr = > - efi_pa_va_lookup(&th->guid, handler_info->acpi_param_buffer_address); > + efi_pa_va_lookup(&th->guid, handler_info->acpi_param_buffer_address, > + PRM_ACPI_PARAM_BUFFER_ADDR); > > } while (++cur_handler < tm->handler_count && (handler_info = > get_next_handler(handler_info))); > > > base-commit: 9d7a0577c9db35c4cc52db90bc415ea248446472 > -- > 2.34.1 >
