Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 29 Aug 2022 07:17:48 -0500 | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] platform/x86: wmi: Lower verbosity of some duplicate GUID messages | | From | Mario Limonciello <> |
| |
On 8/29/22 06:45, Hans de Goede wrote: > Hi Mario, > > On 8/26/22 19:00, Mario Limonciello wrote: >> The WMI subsystem in the kernel currently tracks WMI devices by >> a GUID string not by ACPI device. The GUID used by the `wmi-bmof` >> module however is available from many devices on nearly every machine. >> >> This originally was though to be a bug, but as it happens on most >> machines it is a design mistake. As there isn't an active need to >> get the binary from each of the `wmi-bmof` device, special case it >> and lower the message to debugging. This will help to identify if >> there are other duplicate GUIDs in the wild. >> >> If there are and the information contained in them is desirable it >> may be worth considering a design change to the WMI subsystem to >> access those. >> >> Link: https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flkml.org%2Flkml%2F2017%2F12%2F8%2F913&data=05%7C01%7Cmario.limonciello%40amd.com%7Ce38feb41da464767725808da89b3efcc%7C3dd8961fe4884e608e11a82d994e183d%7C0%7C0%7C637973703162395560%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=sGh1bVTcO7vXOF6%2BwibhS7nbSiH3aEEdVNGfanKkGF8%3D&reserved=0 >> Signed-off-by: Mario Limonciello <mario.limonciello@amd.com> > > I am a bit surprised by this patch. I though that there was > consensus that the right thing to do here is actually create > wmi-bus devices for the duplicate WMI-ids adding a numbered > postfix to the extra devices (lets not add the postfix > to the first device for each WMI GUID as some userspace > code / scripts may depend on the sysfs paths not changing). > > IMHO registering wmi-bus devices for all the WMI devices > in the ACPI table would be the right thing to do ?
I don't disagree it's the correct eventual direction, but I looked at it and it seems to be a much larger overhaul because that means drivers would also need to be able to specify which ACPI device they're intending on interacting with from wmi.c rather than just a GUID string.
So before going down that path I think it's best to understand if it really is just wmi-bmof causing these cases or more cases (low priority IMO) or if there really is a strong need for the overhaul.
> > Regards, > > Hans > > > > >> --- >> drivers/platform/x86/wmi-bmof.c | 2 -- >> drivers/platform/x86/wmi.c | 10 ++++++++-- >> include/linux/wmi.h | 2 ++ >> 3 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/wmi-bmof.c b/drivers/platform/x86/wmi-bmof.c >> index 80137afb9753..af46e9e03376 100644 >> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/wmi-bmof.c >> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/wmi-bmof.c >> @@ -18,8 +18,6 @@ >> #include <linux/types.h> >> #include <linux/wmi.h> >> >> -#define WMI_BMOF_GUID "05901221-D566-11D1-B2F0-00A0C9062910" >> - >> struct bmof_priv { >> union acpi_object *bmofdata; >> struct bin_attribute bmof_bin_attr; >> diff --git a/drivers/platform/x86/wmi.c b/drivers/platform/x86/wmi.c >> index aed293b5af81..d7a1f4bf443b 100644 >> --- a/drivers/platform/x86/wmi.c >> +++ b/drivers/platform/x86/wmi.c >> @@ -1157,6 +1157,9 @@ static void wmi_free_devices(struct acpi_device *device) >> static bool guid_already_parsed(struct acpi_device *device, const guid_t *guid) >> { >> struct wmi_block *wblock; >> + guid_t guid_wmi_bmof; >> + >> + guid_parse(WMI_BMOF_GUID, &guid_wmi_bmof); >> >> list_for_each_entry(wblock, &wmi_block_list, list) { >> if (guid_equal(&wblock->gblock.guid, guid)) { >> @@ -1166,8 +1169,11 @@ static bool guid_already_parsed(struct acpi_device *device, const guid_t *guid) >> * we need to suppress GUIDs that are unique on a >> * given node but duplicated across nodes. >> */ >> - dev_warn(&device->dev, "duplicate WMI GUID %pUL (first instance was on %s)\n", >> - guid, dev_name(&wblock->acpi_device->dev)); >> + if (guid_equal(guid, &guid_wmi_bmof)) >> + dev_dbg(&device->dev, "duplicate WMI-BMOF GUID found\n"); >> + else >> + dev_warn(&device->dev, "duplicate WMI GUID %pUL (first instance was on %s)\n", >> + guid, dev_name(&wblock->acpi_device->dev)); >> return true; >> } >> } >> diff --git a/include/linux/wmi.h b/include/linux/wmi.h >> index b88d7b58e61e..59acdceb4411 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/wmi.h >> +++ b/include/linux/wmi.h >> @@ -13,6 +13,8 @@ >> #include <linux/mod_devicetable.h> >> #include <uapi/linux/wmi.h> >> >> +#define WMI_BMOF_GUID "05901221-D566-11D1-B2F0-00A0C9062910" >> + >> struct wmi_device { >> struct device dev; >> >
|  |