[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240222184738.00000bf7@Huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2024 18:47:38 +0000
From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
To: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
CC: Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>, LKML
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Mika Westerberg
<mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
"Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@...linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 4/4] ACPI: scan: Make acpi_processor_add() check the
device enabled bit
On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 21:03:17 +0100
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net> wrote:
> From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
>
> Modify acpi_processor_add() return an error if _STA returns the enabled
> bit clear for the given processor device, so as to avoid using processors
> that don't decode their resources, as per the ACPI specification. [1]
>
> Link: https://uefi.org/specs/ACPI/6.5/06_Device_Configuration.html#sta-device-status # [1]
> Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>
This does the job for us so if you are happier with this approach
that works for me.
Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> Index: linux-pm/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-pm.orig/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
> +++ linux-pm/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
> @@ -381,6 +381,9 @@ static int acpi_processor_add(struct acp
> struct device *dev;
> int result = 0;
>
> + if (!acpi_device_is_enabled(device))
> + return -ENODEV;
> +
> pr = kzalloc(sizeof(struct acpi_processor), GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!pr)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists