[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZMKIZMfmBMHG0IOz@lpieralisi>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2023 17:08:20 +0200
From: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>
To: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Guanghui Feng <guanghuifeng@...ux.alibaba.com>,
guohanjun@...wei.com, sudeep.holla@....com, rafael@...nel.org,
linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com,
alikernel-developer@...ux.alibaba.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] ACPI/IORT: Remove erroneous id_count check in
iort_node_get_rmr_info()
On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 04:00:43PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 04:17:49PM +0200, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 02:59:02PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 03:39:27PM +0200, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 07:33:45PM +0800, Guanghui Feng wrote:
> > > > > According to the ARM IORT specifications DEN 0049 issue E,
> > > > > the "Number of IDs" field in the ID mapping format reports
> > > > > the number of IDs in the mapping range minus one.
> > > > >
> > > > > In iort_node_get_rmr_info(), we erroneously skip ID mappings
> > > > > whose "Number of IDs" equal to 0, resulting in valid mapping
> > > > > nodes with a single ID to map being skipped, which is wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fix iort_node_get_rmr_info() by removing the bogus id_count
> > > > > check.
> > > > >
> > > > > Fixes: 491cf4a6735a ("ACPI/IORT: Add support to retrieve IORT RMR reserved regions")
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Guanghui Feng <guanghuifeng@...ux.alibaba.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > drivers/acpi/arm64/iort.c | 3 ---
> > > > > 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > Acked-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@...nel.org>
> > > >
> > > > Catalin/Will,
> > > >
> > > > can you pick this up please ?
> > >
> > > Would you like it merged in 6.5 or 6.6 is fine?
> >
> > It is definitely a fix - I don't think that's super urgent
> > though, bug has been there since v6.0 so the fix can probably
> > wait to trickle back from v6.6.
>
> On the flip side, it's a fix, Hanjun has tested it and we have a few
> weeks in case we need to revert it.
>
> So I'd be inclined to say Catalin should pick it up for 6.5, unless
> there's a good reason to wait?
No reason to wait - I just wanted to make clear it is not urgent,
if it is possible it makes sense for it to get into v6.5.
Thanks,
Lorenzo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists