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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).