On 3/21/2025 3:11 AM, Mario Limonciello wrote:
From: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@xxxxxxx>
To make it clearer that amd-pstate failing to setup is a problem
with the firmware, prefix several messages with FW_BUG.
Suggested-by: Paul Menzel <pmenzel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@xxxxxxx>
---
drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c | 6 +++---
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c b/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
index 024d33d5e3670..0a9d6fe426d1c 100644
--- a/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
+++ b/drivers/cpufreq/amd-pstate.c
@@ -931,13 +931,13 @@ static int amd_pstate_init_freq(struct amd_cpudata *cpudata)
* Check _CPC in ACPI table objects if any values are incorrect
*/
if (min_freq <= 0 || max_freq <= 0 || nominal_freq <= 0 || min_freq > max_freq) {
- pr_err("min_freq(%d) or max_freq(%d) or nominal_freq(%d) value is incorrect\n",
+ pr_err(FW_BUG "min_freq(%d) or max_freq(%d) or nominal_freq(%d) value is incorrect\n",
min_freq, max_freq, nominal_freq);
return -EINVAL;
}
if (lowest_nonlinear_freq <= min_freq || lowest_nonlinear_freq > nominal_freq) {
- pr_err("lowest_nonlinear_freq(%d) value is out of range [min_freq(%d), nominal_freq(%d)]\n",
+ pr_err(FW_BUG "lowest_nonlinear_freq(%d) value is out of range [min_freq(%d), nominal_freq(%d)]\n",
lowest_nonlinear_freq, min_freq, nominal_freq);
return -EINVAL;
}
@@ -1505,7 +1505,7 @@ static int amd_pstate_epp_cpu_init(struct cpufreq_policy *policy)
return 0;
free_cpudata1:
- pr_warn("Failed to initialize CPU %d: %d\n", policy->cpu, ret);
+ pr_warn(FW_BUG "Failed to initialize CPU %d: %d\n", policy->cpu, ret);
Just thinking are we sure that we land here only through a firmware bug?
If not, we should probably use FW_WARN ?,
or
Should we add to the error message the specific firmware issue that might cause
each of the functions to fail (e.g. amd_pstate_init_perf(), amd_pstate_init_freq(),
etc).
Comments for the macros, for reference,
* FW_BUG
* Add this to a message where you are sure the firmware is buggy or behaves
* really stupid or out of spec. Be aware that the responsible BIOS developer
* should be able to fix this issue or at least get a concrete idea of the
* problem by reading your message without the need of looking at the kernel
* code.
*
* Use it for definite and high priority BIOS bugs.
*
* FW_WARN
* Use it for not that clear (e.g. could the kernel messed up things already?)
* and medium priority BIOS bugs.
kfree(cpudata);
return ret;
}