All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@kernel.org>
To: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>
Cc: Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	"linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] acpi: x2apic entry with uid < 255 could use processor statement
Date: Mon, 02 Aug 2010 14:34:14 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4C5739D6.1070507@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1280782411.2703.21.camel@sbsiddha-MOBL3.sc.intel.com>

On 08/02/2010 01:53 PM, Suresh Siddha wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-08-02 at 13:18 -0700, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Suresh Siddha
>> <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 2010-07-31 at 07:51 +0100, Yinghai Lu wrote:
>>>> According to Intel x2apic spec page 46
>>>>
>>>> " The hand-off to
>>>> OSPM will have processor IDs in the range of 0 to 254 for xAPIC/x2APIC and 0 to 255
>>>> for SAPIC declared as either Processor() or Device() objects, but not both. Processor
>>>> IDs outside these ranges must be declared as Device() objects."
>>>>
>>>> So only check if Device is used when acpi_id >=255.
>>>>
>>>> that will help system with less 255 cpus, but some cpus apic id > 255,
>>>> still can use Processor statement instead of Device() objects.
>>>
>>> But the entries with apic_id < 255 are supposed to use local APIC
>>> structure and not local x2apic structure. So entries with apic id < 255
>>> must be processed using map_lapic_id() which doesn't have any
>>> device_declaration checks.
>>>
>>> Only for apic ids > 255, we use map_x2apic_id() which needs device
>>> declaration. So this patch is not needed. or Am I missing something?
>>
>> it is acpi_id aka  Processor id.
>>
>> the system has less than 255 cpus, but some cpus apic_id > 255.
>> BIOS have apic entries for apic_id < 255, and some x2apic entries for
>> apic_id > 255.
>>
>> but BIOS still use Processor statement for all cpus.
> 
> Ok. I think there might be some confusion or mis-interpretation of the
> words here. You referred to x2apic spec page 46, perhaps this is an
> older version. Newer x2apic version leaves all the ACPI definitions to
> the ACPI 4.0 spec.
> 
> And here is what ACPI 4.0 spec says:
> 
> In Table5-33 for processor local x2apic structure:
> 
> ACPI Processor UID
> 4
> 12
> OSPM associates the X2APIC Structure with a processor object declared in
> the namespace using the Device statement, when the _UID child object of
> the processor device evaluates to a numeric value, by matching the
> numeric value with this field
> 
> And in page 312:
> 
> <snip>
> The platform may declare processors with IDs in the range of 0-254 for
> APIC/x2APIC implementations and 0-255 for SAPIC implementations using
> either the ASL Processor statement or the ASL Device statement but not
> both. Processors with IDs outside these ranges must be declared using
> the ASL Device statement.
> </snip>
> 
> And in the above paragraph "processors with IDs" are APIC id's and not
> ACPI Id's.
> 
> So I think your bios need to implement ACPI device objects for the
> x2apic entries.

that is confusing.

thanks. I will ask BIOS to fix that.

Yinghai

      reply	other threads:[~2010-08-02 21:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-07-31  6:51 [PATCH] acpi: x2apic entry with uid < 255 could use processor statement Yinghai Lu
2010-08-02 19:06 ` Suresh Siddha
2010-08-02 20:18   ` Yinghai Lu
2010-08-02 20:18     ` Yinghai Lu
2010-08-02 20:53     ` Suresh Siddha
2010-08-02 21:34       ` Yinghai Lu [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4C5739D6.1070507@kernel.org \
    --to=yinghai@kernel.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=lenb@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=suresh.b.siddha@intel.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.