[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250314101226.00003830@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2025 10:12:26 +0000
From: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@...wei.com>
To: Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net>
CC: Yuquan Wang <wangyuquan1236@...tium.com.cn>, <rafael@...nel.org>,
<lenb@...nel.org>, <dave@...olabs.net>, <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
<alison.schofield@...el.com>, <vishal.l.verma@...el.com>,
<ira.weiny@...el.com>, <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, <rrichter@....com>,
<bfaccini@...dia.com>, <rppt@...nel.org>, <haibo1.xu@...el.com>,
<chenbaozi@...tium.com.cn>, <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-cxl@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ACPI: NUMA: debug invalid unused PXM value for CFMWs
On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 11:02:37 -0400
Gregory Price <gourry@...rry.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 02:09:07PM +0800, Yuquan Wang wrote:
> > @@ -441,6 +441,11 @@ static int __init acpi_parse_cfmws(union acpi_subtable_headers *header,
> > start = cfmws->base_hpa;
> > end = cfmws->base_hpa + cfmws->window_size;
> >
> > + if (srat_disabled()) {
> > + pr_err("SRAT is missing or bad while processing CFMWS.\n");
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
>
> I thought the srat was optional regardless of the presence of a CFMWS.
> Is this not the case?
True in theory, but do we want to support it?
I'd vote no unless someone is shipping such a system and can't fix it up.
Jonathan
>
> ~Gregory
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists