Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1391713 > unrolled thread

Re: [PATCH] x86/efi-bgrt: Switch all pr_err() to pr_debug() for invalid BGRT

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: [PATCH] x86/efi-bgrt: Switch all pr_err() to pr_debug() for  invalid BGRT Matt Fleming <matt@codeblueprint.co.uk> - 2016-05-01 00:40 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] x86/efi-bgrt: Switch all pr_err() to pr_debug() for  invalid BGRT Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com> - 2016-05-01 00:50 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] x86/efi-bgrt: Switch all pr_err() to pr_debug() for  invalid BGRT Josh Triplett <josh@joshtriplett.org> - 2016-05-01 01:20 +0200

#1391713 — Re: [PATCH] x86/efi-bgrt: Switch all pr_err() to pr_debug() for invalid BGRT

(Adding Colin and Ricardo)

On Wed, 27 Apr, at 01:23:55PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> 
> How is an end user supposed to see such a message and report it to the
> people that can fix it?  They can't.  So they report it in their
> distributions bug tracker and it either gets closed as "yeah, firmware
> sucks" or it sits there and rots in the hope that some day someone
> will do something.
> 
> I understand where you're coming from in a pre-production, development
> environment but to be quite clear that is not the default environment
> Linux is run in most of the time.  If this were a kernel warning, that
> could be fixed with a kernel patch, then maybe it would be worth it.
> It isn't though.

If the error messages in the BGRT driver make it impossible for end
users to achieve a pretty boot experience then I agree, that is a
kernel bug. BGRT is an exception to the usual rule about complaining
loudly when we encounter firmware bugs simply because we're dealing
with UIs in this case.

That's not to say we should give up reporting these kinds of invalid
table issues to firmware developers altogether. There are other means
of doing it, and comprising the wants of many end users for the
benefit of few firmware developers (relatively) is just not sensible.

Colin, Ricardo, I haven't checked recently, are there ACPI BGRT
validations tests in FWTS and LUV? Josh (Triplett), BITS would seem
like a very good place to include these tests since it already has a
bunch of ACPI table checks.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1391718

On 30/04/16 23:35, Matt Fleming wrote:
> (Adding Colin and Ricardo)
> 
> On Wed, 27 Apr, at 01:23:55PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>
>> How is an end user supposed to see such a message and report it to the
>> people that can fix it?  They can't.  So they report it in their
>> distributions bug tracker and it either gets closed as "yeah, firmware
>> sucks" or it sits there and rots in the hope that some day someone
>> will do something.
>>
>> I understand where you're coming from in a pre-production, development
>> environment but to be quite clear that is not the default environment
>> Linux is run in most of the time.  If this were a kernel warning, that
>> could be fixed with a kernel patch, then maybe it would be worth it.
>> It isn't though.
> 
> If the error messages in the BGRT driver make it impossible for end
> users to achieve a pretty boot experience then I agree, that is a
> kernel bug. BGRT is an exception to the usual rule about complaining
> loudly when we encounter firmware bugs simply because we're dealing
> with UIs in this case.
> 
> That's not to say we should give up reporting these kinds of invalid
> table issues to firmware developers altogether. There are other means
> of doing it, and comprising the wants of many end users for the
> benefit of few firmware developers (relatively) is just not sensible.
> 
> Colin, Ricardo, I haven't checked recently, are there ACPI BGRT
> validations tests in FWTS and LUV? Josh (Triplett), BITS would seem
> like a very good place to include these tests since it already has a
> bunch of ACPI table checks.
> 
fwts does have a BGRT test, although it is fairly trivial:

http://kernel.ubuntu.com/git/hwe/fwts.git/tree/src/acpi/bgrt/bgrt.c

Colin

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1391720

On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 11:35:14PM +0100, Matt Fleming wrote:
> (Adding Colin and Ricardo)
> 
> On Wed, 27 Apr, at 01:23:55PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > 
> > How is an end user supposed to see such a message and report it to the
> > people that can fix it?  They can't.  So they report it in their
> > distributions bug tracker and it either gets closed as "yeah, firmware
> > sucks" or it sits there and rots in the hope that some day someone
> > will do something.
> > 
> > I understand where you're coming from in a pre-production, development
> > environment but to be quite clear that is not the default environment
> > Linux is run in most of the time.  If this were a kernel warning, that
> > could be fixed with a kernel patch, then maybe it would be worth it.
> > It isn't though.
> 
> If the error messages in the BGRT driver make it impossible for end
> users to achieve a pretty boot experience then I agree, that is a
> kernel bug. BGRT is an exception to the usual rule about complaining
> loudly when we encounter firmware bugs simply because we're dealing
> with UIs in this case.

Fine.  What's the highest priority message that will *not* cause splash
screens to go into text mode?  With the default boot argument of
"quiet", pr_notice or pr_info should still remain hidden, right?  So,
could we make these pr_notice, rather than pr_debug?  That way they'll
at least show up in logs, even though they don't show up on the console.

> That's not to say we should give up reporting these kinds of invalid
> table issues to firmware developers altogether. There are other means
> of doing it, and comprising the wants of many end users for the
> benefit of few firmware developers (relatively) is just not sensible.
> 
> Colin, Ricardo, I haven't checked recently, are there ACPI BGRT
> validations tests in FWTS and LUV? Josh (Triplett), BITS would seem
> like a very good place to include these tests since it already has a
> bunch of ACPI table checks.

BITS doesn't, but should; I've added it to the TODO list.

- Josh Triplett

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web