On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 08:00:07PM +0300, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> The ICM firmware may reject devices for different reasons, even if we
> have asked it to accept anything. If we notice a device is rejected, we
> just log the event and bail out.
>
> Signed-off-by: Mika Westerberg <mika.westerb...@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> drivers/thunderbolt/icm.c | 6 ++++++
> drivers/thunderbolt/tb_msgs.h | 1 +
> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/thunderbolt/icm.c b/drivers/thunderbolt/icm.c
> index 611d28e8e5f2..34d7740d1cbd 100644
> --- a/drivers/thunderbolt/icm.c
> +++ b/drivers/thunderbolt/icm.c
> @@ -410,6 +410,12 @@ icm_fr_device_connected(struct tb *tb, const struct
> icm_pkg_header *hdr)
> ICM_LINK_INFO_DEPTH_SHIFT;
> authorized = pkg->link_info & ICM_LINK_INFO_APPROVED;
>
> + if (pkg->link_info & ICM_LINK_INFO_REJECTED) {
> + tb_info(tb, "switch at %u.%u was rejected by ICM firmware\n",
> + link, depth);
This kind of condition sounds more like an error instead of info.
Please bump this up to tb_WARN/tb_warn ideally tb_err().
BTW - why do we have tb_WARN and tb_warn in drivers/thunderbolt/tb.h ?
-jeremy
> + return;
> + }
> +
> ret = icm->get_route(tb, link, depth, &route);
> if (ret) {
> tb_err(tb, "failed to find route string for switch at %u.%u\n",
> diff --git a/drivers/thunderbolt/tb_msgs.h b/drivers/thunderbolt/tb_msgs.h
> index b0a092baa605..476bc04cac6c 100644
> --- a/drivers/thunderbolt/tb_msgs.h
> +++ b/drivers/thunderbolt/tb_msgs.h
> @@ -176,6 +176,7 @@ struct icm_fr_event_device_connected {
> #define ICM_LINK_INFO_DEPTH_SHIFT 4
> #define ICM_LINK_INFO_DEPTH_MASK GENMASK(7, 4)
> #define ICM_LINK_INFO_APPROVED BIT(8)
> +#define ICM_LINK_INFO_REJECTED BIT(9)
>
> struct icm_fr_pkg_approve_device {
> struct icm_pkg_header hdr;
