All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
To: <linux-mm@kvack.org>, <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, <x86@kernel.org>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
	<rafael@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, <linuxarm@huawei.com>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	Brice Goglin <Brice.Goglin@inria.fr>,
	"Sean V Kelley" <sean.v.kelley@linux.intel.com>,
	<linux-api@vger.kernel.org>, "Borislav Petkov" <bp@alien8.de>,
	Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>,
	Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
Subject: [PATCH v12 4/6] ACPI: HMAT: Fix handling of changes from ACPI 6.2 to ACPI 6.3
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 22:05:45 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200930140547.840251-5-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200930140547.840251-1-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>

In ACPI 6.3, the Memory Proximity Domain Attributes Structure
changed substantially.  One of those changes was that the flag
for "Memory Proximity Domain field is valid" was deprecated.

This was because the field "Proximity Domain for the Memory"
became a required field and hence having a validity flag makes
no sense.

So the correct logic is to always assume the field is there.
Current code assumes it never is.

Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
---
 drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c b/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c
index 2c32cfb72370..6a91a55229ae 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c
@@ -424,7 +424,8 @@ static int __init hmat_parse_proximity_domain(union acpi_subtable_headers *heade
 		pr_info("HMAT: Memory Flags:%04x Processor Domain:%u Memory Domain:%u\n",
 			p->flags, p->processor_PD, p->memory_PD);
 
-	if (p->flags & ACPI_HMAT_MEMORY_PD_VALID && hmat_revision == 1) {
+	if ((hmat_revision == 1 && p->flags & ACPI_HMAT_MEMORY_PD_VALID) ||
+	    hmat_revision > 1) {
 		target = find_mem_target(p->memory_PD);
 		if (!target) {
 			pr_debug("HMAT: Memory Domain missing from SRAT\n");
-- 
2.19.1


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
To: <linux-mm@kvack.org>, <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, <x86@kernel.org>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
	<rafael@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-api@vger.kernel.org, Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxarm@huawei.com,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>,
	Brice Goglin <Brice.Goglin@inria.fr>,
	Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	Sean V Kelley <sean.v.kelley@linux.intel.com>
Subject: [PATCH v12 4/6] ACPI: HMAT: Fix handling of changes from ACPI 6.2 to ACPI 6.3
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 22:05:45 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200930140547.840251-5-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200930140547.840251-1-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>

In ACPI 6.3, the Memory Proximity Domain Attributes Structure
changed substantially.  One of those changes was that the flag
for "Memory Proximity Domain field is valid" was deprecated.

This was because the field "Proximity Domain for the Memory"
became a required field and hence having a validity flag makes
no sense.

So the correct logic is to always assume the field is there.
Current code assumes it never is.

Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
---
 drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c b/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c
index 2c32cfb72370..6a91a55229ae 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c
@@ -424,7 +424,8 @@ static int __init hmat_parse_proximity_domain(union acpi_subtable_headers *heade
 		pr_info("HMAT: Memory Flags:%04x Processor Domain:%u Memory Domain:%u\n",
 			p->flags, p->processor_PD, p->memory_PD);
 
-	if (p->flags & ACPI_HMAT_MEMORY_PD_VALID && hmat_revision == 1) {
+	if ((hmat_revision == 1 && p->flags & ACPI_HMAT_MEMORY_PD_VALID) ||
+	    hmat_revision > 1) {
 		target = find_mem_target(p->memory_PD);
 		if (!target) {
 			pr_debug("HMAT: Memory Domain missing from SRAT\n");
-- 
2.19.1


_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-09-30 14:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-09-30 14:05 [PATCH v12 0/6] ACPI: Support Generic Initiator proximity domains Jonathan Cameron
2020-09-30 14:05 ` Jonathan Cameron
2020-09-30 14:05 ` [PATCH v12 1/6] ACPI: Support Generic Initiator only domains Jonathan Cameron
2020-09-30 14:05   ` Jonathan Cameron
2020-09-30 14:05 ` [PATCH v12 2/6] x86: Support Generic Initiator only proximity domains Jonathan Cameron
2020-09-30 14:05   ` Jonathan Cameron
2020-09-30 15:51   ` Borislav Petkov
2020-09-30 15:51     ` Borislav Petkov
2020-09-30 14:05 ` [PATCH v12 3/6] ACPI: Let ACPI know we support Generic Initiator Affinity Structures Jonathan Cameron
2020-09-30 14:05   ` Jonathan Cameron
2020-09-30 14:05 ` Jonathan Cameron [this message]
2020-09-30 14:05   ` [PATCH v12 4/6] ACPI: HMAT: Fix handling of changes from ACPI 6.2 to ACPI 6.3 Jonathan Cameron
2020-09-30 14:05 ` [PATCH v12 5/6] node: Add access1 class to represent CPU to memory characteristics Jonathan Cameron
2020-09-30 14:05   ` Jonathan Cameron
2020-09-30 14:05 ` [PATCH v12 6/6] docs: mm: numaperf.rst Add brief description for access class 1 Jonathan Cameron
2020-09-30 14:05   ` Jonathan Cameron
2020-10-02 16:55 ` [PATCH v12 0/6] ACPI: Support Generic Initiator proximity domains Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-02 16:55   ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2020-10-02 16:55   ` Rafael J. Wysocki

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=20200930140547.840251-5-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com \
    --to=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com \
    --cc=Brice.Goglin@inria.fr \
    --cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
    --cc=guohanjun@huawei.com \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-api@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linuxarm@huawei.com \
    --cc=lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com \
    --cc=mingo@redhat.com \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=sean.v.kelley@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /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.