On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 11:28:16AM -0800, Jeremy McNicoll wrote:
> On 2018-02-26 5:38 AM, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 12:20:29PM +0200, Mika Westerberg wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 03:17:38PM -0800, Jeremy McNicoll wrote:
> > > > > + 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().
> > >
> > > No, this is not an error.
> >
> > To be more clear, it is totally fine to have the firmware to reject some
> > devices. For example in case of the new usbonly security level the
> > firmware rejects other devices but the first.
> >
>
> Ok. Is that kind of information available to the kernel? What security
> mode we are in?
>
> ie) if (LINK_REJECTED && !USB_SECURITY)
> print "Error switch %u was rejected since its not usbonly"
> endif
>
> I am sure something like that simplified pseudo code above would
> be somewhat useful to users when debugging.
That's why it is on info level so it goes to dmesg but does not scare
the user :-)
