[Intel-gfx] [PATCH] powercap: intel_rapl: Don't warn about BIOS locked limits during resume

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 8:48 PM Ville Syrjälä
<ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 08:31:34PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 24, 2023 at 7:11 PM Ville Syrjälä
> > <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 09:59:47PM +0300, Ville Syrjälä wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Oct 04, 2023 at 06:45:22PM +0000, Pandruvada, Srinivas wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 2023-10-04 at 21:34 +0300, Ville Syrjala wrote:
> > > > > > From: Ville Syrjälä <ville.syrjala at linux.intel.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Restore enough of the original behaviour to stop spamming
> > > > > > dmesg with warnings about BIOS locked limits when trying
> > > > > > to restore them during resume.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This still doesn't 100% match the original behaviour
> > > > > > as we no longer attempt to blindly restore the BIOS locked
> > > > > > limits. No idea if that makes any difference in practice.
> > > > > >
> > > > > I lost the context here. Why can't we simply change pr_warn to pr_debug
> > > > > here?
> > > >
> > > > I presume someone wanted to make it pr_warn() for a reason.
> > > > I don't mind either way.
> > >
> > > Ping. Can someone make a decision on how this should get fixed
> > > so we get this moving forward?
> >
> > I thought we were going to replace the pr_warn() with pr_debug().
>
> I didn't get any answer whether anyone wants to keep the pr_warn().
> If everyone is happy with pr_debug() that then I can send a patch
> for it.

Yes, please.