From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
To: John Garry <john.garry@huawei.com>
Cc: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>,
"Guohanjun (Hanjun Guo)" <guohanjun@huawei.com>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
"liuqi (BA)" <liuqi115@huawei.com>,
Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Subject: Re: About PPTT find_acpi_cpu_topology_package()
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2020 13:55:51 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200212135551.GB36981@bogus> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <be88fdfc-50a0-9753-4f8f-d80c303892be@huawei.com>
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 12:48:33PM +0000, John Garry wrote:
> On 12/02/2020 11:59, Sudeep Holla wrote:
[...]
> > Yes, as mentioned above. We are not going to do extra work for lazy firmware.
>
> I don't think it's reasonable to just label this as lazy. The table may just
> not have the flag set unintentionally. FW and software guys make mistakes,
> like the mistakes in PPTT, itself.
>
We are not talking about flags, it's UID and it is pretty important if
there are more than one objects of same time.
> > Linux also will be lazy on such platform and provide weird unique numbers
> > like in the above case you have mentioned.
>
> Personally I think that the kernel can be do better than provide meaningless
> values like this, since it knows the processor IDs and which physical
> package they belong to.
>
This was discussed quite a lot, I can dig and point you to it. That's the
reason for choosing offset. We are *not going back* to this again. Fix the
firmware before it gets copied for all future platforms and Linux has to
deal with that *forever*.
> If not, at least make the user know of potential deficiencies in the table.
>
How ? What are your suggestions ? Does adding a warning or note that UID
is missing and offset is chosen help ? I am kind of fine with that.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-02-12 13:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-02-12 11:20 About PPTT find_acpi_cpu_topology_package() John Garry
2020-02-12 11:59 ` Sudeep Holla
2020-02-12 12:48 ` John Garry
2020-02-12 13:55 ` Sudeep Holla [this message]
2020-02-11 18:49 ` Jeremy Linton
2020-02-12 15:36 ` Sudeep Holla
2020-02-12 14:41 ` John Garry
2020-02-11 19:01 ` Jeremy Linton
2020-03-25 11:43 ` John Garry
2020-02-11 19:31 ` Jeremy Linton
2020-02-12 16:41 ` John Garry
2020-02-11 21:12 ` Jeremy Linton
2020-02-13 11:52 ` John Garry
2020-02-13 14:00 ` Sudeep Holla
2020-02-13 14:33 ` John Garry
2020-02-13 16:52 ` Jeremy Linton
2020-02-14 10:35 ` John Garry
2020-02-14 11:22 ` Sudeep Holla
2020-02-12 15:32 ` Sudeep Holla
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200212135551.GB36981@bogus \
--to=sudeep.holla@arm.com \
--cc=guohanjun@huawei.com \
--cc=jeremy.linton@arm.com \
--cc=john.garry@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=liuqi115@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.