Re: [PATCH 3/4] ACPI: Introduce DMA ranges parsing

[Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>]

On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 08:42:15PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 24, 2017 at 12:40 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi
> <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 12:15:42AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> >
> 
> [cut]
> 
> >
> >> > +           return -EINVAL;
> >> > +   }
> >> > +
> >> > +   ret = acpi_dev_get_dma_resources(adev, &list);
> >> > +   if (ret > 0) {
> >> > +           list_for_each_entry(rentry, &list, node) {
> >> > +                   if (dma_offset && rentry->offset != dma_offset) {
> >> > +                           ret = -EINVAL;
> >> > +                           pr_warn("Can't handle multiple windows with different offsets\n");
> >> > +                           goto out;
> >> > +                   }
> >> > +                   dma_offset = rentry->offset;
> >> > +
> >> > +                   /* Take lower and upper limits */
> >> > +                   if (rentry->res->start < dma_start)
> >> > +                           dma_start = rentry->res->start;
> >> > +                   if (rentry->res->end > dma_end)
> >> > +                           dma_end = rentry->res->end;
> >> > +           }
> >> > +
> >> > +           if (dma_start >= dma_end) {
> >> > +                   ret = -EINVAL;
> >> > +                   pr_warn("Invalid DMA regions configuration\n");
> >>
> >> dev_warn()?
> >>
> >> And why _warn() and not _info()?
> >
> > Mmm..ok for the dev_ prefix - basically this would be a FW_BUG (I think
> > this specific error condition is overkill TBH, the ACPI resource
> > validation code should catch it before we even get here) not sure
> > about downgrading it to _info() though, I would leave it at this
> > loglevel - in particular in the offset check above:
> >
> >         if (dma_offset && rentry->offset != dma_offset) {
> >                 ret = -EINVAL;
> >                 pr_warn("Can't handle multiple windows with different offsets\n");
> >                 goto out;
> >         }
> 
> Well, so the "why" question above still has no answer ...

It is a firmware misconfiguration, we end up dismissing firmware
information and use the device with default/possibly misconfigured
DMA windows (ie offset == 0) for that platform, that's the reason
why I thought it would deserve a _warn rather than _info loglevel.

Thanks,
Lorenzo