On 1/28/2014 1:18 AM, David Rientjes wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2014, Jiang Liu wrote:
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c b/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
index c9311be..c29c2c3 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
@@ -261,7 +261,7 @@ static int acpi_processor_get_info(struct acpi_device
*device)
apic_id = acpi_get_apicid(pr->handle, device_declaration, pr->acpi_id);
if (apic_id < 0) {
- acpi_handle_err(pr->handle, "failed to get CPU APIC ID.\n");
+ acpi_handle_debug(pr->handle, "failed to get CPU APIC ID.\n");
return -ENODEV;
}
Don't we already leave some artifact in the kernel log at boot about apic
ids that don't get registered? I'm wondering if we should have this
warning at all.
It is useful for knowing that there are potentially broken objects in
the ACPI tables.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
