ASoC: SOF: intel: lower print level to dbg if we will reinit DSP

[bardliao]

We will reinit DSP when it is fail to init. So, it is not an error before
we finally give up. And reorder the trace to make it more readable.

Signed-off-by: Bard liao yung-chuan.liao@linux.intel.com

[bardliao]

@Bin-QA I didn't touch the error message in hda_init_caps() and hda_dsp_dump() since the error message there could be a real error.

[dbaluta]

@bardliao I think we can lower the level to dev_dbg. What do you think?

[paulstelian97]

@bardliao I think we can lower the level to dev_dbg. What do you think?

I'd argue dev_warn is correct unless it's typical to do such reloads, and dropping it below dev_info isn't that good of an option unless it happens very often.

[plbossart]

I'd also move to dev_dbg. There are known cases where we need extra time, and we should only report those retries for debug cases, the average users should not know or care.

[Bin-QA]

I can understand this change, but from error message,
it dump for the 4 error line: which refer this change:
like:

kernel: [ 604.503173] sof-audio-pci 0000:00:1f.3: error: cl_dsp_init: timeout HDA_DSP_SRAM_REG_ROM_STATUS read
Dec 24 15:20:52 jf-icl-rvp-hda-4 kernel: [ 604.503206] sof-audio-pci 0000:00:1f.3: error: status = 0x00000000 panic = 0x00000000
Dec 24 15:20:52 jf-icl-rvp-hda-4 kernel: [ 604.503258] sof-audio-pci 0000:00:1f.3: error: Error code=0xffffffff: FW status=0xffffffff
Dec 24 15:20:52 jf-icl-rvp-hda-4 kernel: [ 604.503261] sof-audio-pci 0000:00:1f.3: error: iteration 0 of Core En/ROM load failed: -110

So your patch just fix line 3 & line 4 output in dmesg, how about line 1 & line 2
From CI/automation, we will catch for sof-audio-pci + error as keyword

[bardliao]

Update the PR with dev_dbg

[bardliao]

I can understand this change, but from error message,
it dump for the 4 error line: which refer this change:
like:

kernel: [ 604.503173] sof-audio-pci 0000:00:1f.3: error: cl_dsp_init: timeout HDA_DSP_SRAM_REG_ROM_STATUS read
Dec 24 15:20:52 jf-icl-rvp-hda-4 kernel: [ 604.503206] sof-audio-pci 0000:00:1f.3: error: status = 0x00000000 panic = 0x00000000
Dec 24 15:20:52 jf-icl-rvp-hda-4 kernel: [ 604.503258] sof-audio-pci 0000:00:1f.3: error: Error code=0xffffffff: FW status=0xffffffff
Dec 24 15:20:52 jf-icl-rvp-hda-4 kernel: [ 604.503261] sof-audio-pci 0000:00:1f.3: error: iteration 0 of Core En/ROM load failed: -110

So your patch just fix line 3 & line 4 output in dmesg, how about line 1 & line 2
From CI/automation, we will catch for sof-audio-pci + error as keyword

@Bin-QA I agree that the patch won't fix the CI issue. My point is that the trace will let us know there is something wrong on cl_dsp_init(). Although we will retry it, but we do fail to cl_dsp_init(). It seems to be overkilled if we remove the error message from cl_dsp_init().

kernel: [ 604.503173] sof-audio-pci 0000:00:1f.3: error: cl_dsp_init: timeout HDA_DSP_SRAM_REG_ROM_STATUS read
Dec 24 15:20:52 jf-icl-rvp-hda-4 kernel: [ 604.503206] sof-audio-pci 0000:00:1f.3: error: status = 0x00000000 panic = 0x00000000

[Bin-QA]

@Bin-QA I agree that the patch won't fix the CI issue. My point is that the trace will let us know there is something wrong on cl_dsp_init(). Although we will retry it, but we do fail to cl_dsp_init(). It seems to be overkilled if we remove the error message from cl_dsp_init().

kernel: [ 604.503173] sof-audio-pci 0000:00:1f.3: error: cl_dsp_init: timeout HDA_DSP_SRAM_REG_ROM_STATUS read
Dec 24 15:20:52 jf-icl-rvp-hda-4 kernel: [ 604.503206] sof-audio-pci 0000:00:1f.3: error: status = 0x00000000 panic = 0x00000000

@bardliao So you suggest CI catch this type error to report the warning/add this into ignore list

[lyakh]

For my understanding: do we know what causes such soft initialisation failures, that can be eliminated by re-trying?

[bardliao]

For my understanding: do we know what causes such soft initialisation failures, that can be eliminated by re-trying?

Yeah, I can see initialization failure in system suspend/resume and success at the second try.

[bardliao]

@bardliao So you suggest CI catch this type error to report the warning/add this into ignore list

In my opinion, It would be better if CI can know if the error could be fixed by retry rather than ignore it without any condition.

[marc-hb]

Please review thesofproject/sof-test#395 which ignores this error message - again after @plbossart removed the filter.