linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1 25/29] cxl/amd: Enable Zen5 address translation using ACPI PRMT

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <Z3-hlYh3voRFLG6o@rric.localdomain>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2025 11:14:46 +0100
From: Robert Richter <rrichter@....com>
To: Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>
Cc: Alison Schofield <alison.schofield@...el.com>,
	Vishal Verma <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
	Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>,
	Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
	Terry Bowman <terry.bowman@....com>, linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	"Fabio M. De Francesco" <fabio.m.de.francesco@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 25/29] cxl/amd: Enable Zen5 address translation using
 ACPI PRMT

On 08.01.25 10:48:23, Gregory Price wrote:

> > diff --git a/drivers/cxl/core/port.c b/drivers/cxl/core/port.c
> > index 901555bf4b73..c8176265c15c 100644
> > --- a/drivers/cxl/core/port.c
> > +++ b/drivers/cxl/core/port.c
> > @@ -831,6 +831,11 @@ static void cxl_debugfs_create_dport_dir(struct cxl_dport *dport)
> >  			    &cxl_einj_inject_fops);
> >  }
> >  
> > +static void cxl_port_platform_setup(struct cxl_port *port)
> > +{
> > +	cxl_port_setup_amd(port);
> > +}
> > +
> 
> Assuming this gets expanded (which it may not), should we expect this
> function to end up like so?
> 
> static void cxl_port_platform_setup(struct cxl_port *port)
> {
> 	cxl_port_setup_amd(port);
> 	cxl_port_setup_intel(port);
> 	cxl_port_setup_arm(port);
> 	... etc ...
> }
> 
> I suppose this logic has to exist somewhere in some form, just want to make
> sure this is what we want.  Either way, this is easily modifiable, so
> not a blocker as I said.

Yes, it is exactly designed like that. I will update the patch
description.

-Robert