From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com>
To: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
Cc: <linux-mm@kvack.org>, <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, <x86@kernel.org>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>, <rafael@kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 4/6] ACPI: HMAT: Fix handling of changes from ACPI 6.2 to ACPI 6.3
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 09:42:58 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200821094258.00007925@Huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200820222129.GA1571389@bjorn-Precision-5520>
On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 17:21:29 -0500
Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org> wrote:
> 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 <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
> > ---
> > 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) {
>
Hi Bjorn,
> 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) {
Good point. We have existing protections elsewhere against hmat_revision
being anything other than 1 or 2, so we should aim to keep that in only one place.
I'll tidy this up for v10.
thanks,
Jonathan
>
> > target = find_mem_target(p->memory_PD);
> > if (!target) {
> > pr_debug("HMAT: Memory Domain missing from SRAT\n");
> > --
> > 2.19.1
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-21 8:44 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-08-19 14:51 [PATCH v9 0/6] ACPI: Support Generic Initiator proximity domains Jonathan Cameron
2020-08-19 14:51 ` [PATCH v9 1/6] ACPI: Support Generic Initiator only domains Jonathan Cameron
2020-08-19 14:51 ` [PATCH v9 2/6] x86: Support Generic Initiator only proximity domains Jonathan Cameron
2020-08-20 22:24 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-08-21 8:54 ` Jonathan Cameron
2020-08-19 14:51 ` [PATCH v9 3/6] ACPI: Let ACPI know we support Generic Initiator Affinity Structures Jonathan Cameron
2020-08-19 14:51 ` [PATCH v9 4/6] ACPI: HMAT: Fix handling of changes from ACPI 6.2 to ACPI 6.3 Jonathan Cameron
2020-08-20 22:21 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-08-21 8:42 ` Jonathan Cameron [this message]
2020-08-21 12:13 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-08-21 12:59 ` Jonathan Cameron
2020-08-21 13:46 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-08-21 14:59 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-08-21 16:30 ` Jonathan Cameron
2020-08-21 16:37 ` Jonathan Cameron
2020-08-21 16:54 ` Bjorn Helgaas
2020-08-19 14:51 ` [PATCH v9 5/6] node: Add access1 class to represent CPU to memory characteristics Jonathan Cameron
2020-08-19 14:51 ` [PATCH v9 6/6] docs: mm: numaperf.rst Add brief description for access class 1 Jonathan Cameron
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=20200821094258.00007925@Huawei.com \
--to=jonathan.cameron@huawei.com \
--cc=Brice.Goglin@inria.fr \
--cc=bhelgaas@google.com \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=helgaas@kernel.org \
--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 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).