[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <68195c77-e645-ebd5-3067-489536e7ace9@suse.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2023 12:15:08 +0100
From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@...e.com>
To: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@...rix.com>
Cc: xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, josef@...rland.se,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>, x86@...nel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>,
Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@...nel.org>,
Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@...m.com>,
Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
Alex Chiang <achiang@...com>, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] acpi/processor: fix evaluating _PDC method when
running as Xen dom0
On 16.03.2023 12:00, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 11:45:47AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 16.03.2023 11:32, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
>>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/xen/hypervisor.h
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/xen/hypervisor.h
>>> @@ -63,4 +63,14 @@ void __init xen_pvh_init(struct boot_params *boot_params);
>>> void __init mem_map_via_hcall(struct boot_params *boot_params_p);
>>> #endif
>>>
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_XEN_DOM0
>>
>> Shouldn't you also check CONFIG_X86 here, seeing the condition for when
>> pcpu.c would be built?
>
> It's in a x86 specific header, so that's enough I think? (note the
> path of the header)
Oh, of course I should have paid attention - I'm sorry. (Then again it's
not really logical to live in an arch-dependent header, as the same would
be needed elsewhere with ACPI.)
>> Additionally CONFIG_ACPI may want checking, which
>> - taken together - would amount to checking CONFIG_XEN_ACPI. (For which
>> in turn I find odd that it will also be engaged when !DOM0.)
>
> Hm, is it worth making the acpi_id field in struct pcpu or helper
> conditional to CONFIG_ACPI? It's just data fetched from Xen so it
> doesn't depend on any of the ACPI functionality in Linux.
>
> IMO I don't think it's worth the extra ifdefs.
I didn't mean to suggest #ifdef for the new struct field. But the helper
is of no use without ACPI.
Jan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists