[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3895a0d8-9cca-2512-a06e-0ee2ac7db773@arm.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 10:57:47 +0100
From: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>,
ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>,
shunyong.yang@...-semitech.com, yu.zheng@...-semitech.com,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@....com>,
Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI/PPTT: use ACPI ID whenever
ACPI_PPTT_ACPI_PROCESSOR_ID_VALID is set
On 02/07/18 10:06, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 6:17 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com> wrote:
>> Currently we use the ACPI processor ID only for the leaf/processor nodes
>> as the specification states it must match the value of ACPI processor ID
>> field in the processor’s entry in the MADT.
>>
>> However, if a PPTT structure represents processors group, it match a
>> processor container UID in the namespace and ACPI_PPTT_ACPI_PROCESSOR_ID_VALID
>> flag describe whether the ACPI processor ID is valid.
>>
>> Lets use UID whenever ACPI_PPTT_ACPI_PROCESSOR_ID_VALID is set to be
>> consistent instead of using table offset as it's currently done for non
>> leaf nodes.
>>
>> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
>> ---
>> drivers/acpi/pptt.c | 10 ++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> There's ongoing discussion on assigning ID based in OS using simple
>> counters. It can never be consistent with firmware's view. So if the
>> firmware provides valid UID for non-processors node, we must use it.
>
> OK
>
> Do you regard this as a fix for the recently merged PPTT material? If
> so, I should apply it as a fix for 4.18.
>
Yes, it should be considered as fix IMO.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
Powered by blists - more mailing lists