linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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
> >   




  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).