On Thu, Jul 3, 2025 at 1:37 PM Sumeet R.P. <sumeet4linux@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 2, 2025 at 11:24 PM Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 21, 2025 at 7:17 AM Sumeet Pawnikar <sumeet4linux@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> > Update invalid value returned debug print with fps_count
>> > instead of control value for checking fan fps count condition.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Sumeet Pawnikar <sumeet4linux@xxxxxxxxx>
>> > ---
>> > drivers/acpi/fan_core.c | 2 +-
>> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/fan_core.c b/drivers/acpi/fan_core.c
>> > index 8ad12ad3aaaf..9f2696a1928c 100644
>> > --- a/drivers/acpi/fan_core.c
>> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/fan_core.c
>> > @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ static int fan_get_state_acpi4(struct acpi_device *device, unsigned long *state)
>> > break;
>> > }
>> > if (i == fan->fps_count) {
>> > - dev_dbg(&device->dev, "Invalid control value returned\n");
>> > + dev_dbg(&device->dev, "Invalid fps_count value returned\n");
>>
>> I guess this should be "fps" instead of "fps_count" because the latter
>> is just the array size, isn't it?
>>
>
> Yes, this can be fps.
>
>>
>> But I don't see why it should not be "control" either.
>>
> In this same function fan_get_state_acpi4(), the same debug print message
> is already present for invalid control value.
> So, it's confusing when we get the message and difficult to identify
> due to which condition the message is coming from.
Agreed, so maybe change the second message to something like "No
matching fps control value".
