From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 143DCC433E1 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 22:21:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C64CD207DF for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 22:21:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="knEda3aC" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org C64CD207DF Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 57FE76B00AF; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 18:21:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 4E2206B00B0; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 18:21:33 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 381706B00B1; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 18:21:33 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0097.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.97]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 217B16B00AF for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 18:21:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin14.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBCE93631 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 22:21:32 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77172369624.14.apple79_2c172b527034 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin14.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D8B118229837 for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 22:21:32 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: apple79_2c172b527034 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 3434 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by imf50.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 22:21:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (104.sub-72-107-126.myvzw.com [72.107.126.104]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F0C832075E; Thu, 20 Aug 2020 22:21:30 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1597962091; bh=YZFXjRScFns5Q/JX8kMKWW0SqdzIXgtS9wkbdlVq+aY=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:From; b=knEda3aCkNQRb87lx+sMgW3yN3C0Y6JlzUzcCgx8GpjQ10pVHNJ4crvidnJ1gmard 5v3EkkglnDiXCky0Pjvo1GthcdGBaGo/AMvK4GnWaK1ckhnJ7Kws0ZkiAgZ0Z2+TtX yfwNjy/fqDviqP4iGN/YePrORscJex7NxAo+wTqo= Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2020 17:21:29 -0500 From: Bjorn Helgaas To: Jonathan Cameron Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, x86@kernel.org, Lorenzo Pieralisi , Bjorn Helgaas , rafael@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , linuxarm@huawei.com, Dan Williams , Brice Goglin , Sean V Kelley , linux-api@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 4/6] ACPI: HMAT: Fix handling of changes from ACPI 6.2 to ACPI 6.3 Message-ID: <20200820222129.GA1571389@bjorn-Precision-5520> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200819145111.1715026-5-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 9D8B118229837 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 100.00] X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 10:51:09PM +0800, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > 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 > --- > drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c b/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c > index 2c32cfb72370..07cfe50136e0 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c > @@ -424,7 +424,7 @@ 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 ((p->flags & ACPI_HMAT_MEMORY_PD_VALID && hmat_revision == 1) || hmat_revision == 2) { I hope/assume the spec is written in such a way that p->memory_PD is required for any revision > 1? So maybe this should be: if ((p->flags & ACPI_HMAT_MEMORY_PD_VALID && hmat_revision == 1) || hmat_revision > 1) { > target = find_mem_target(p->memory_PD); > if (!target) { > pr_debug("HMAT: Memory Domain missing from SRAT\n"); > -- > 2.19.1 >