On 9/17/2013 10:30 AM, Jan Beulich wrote:

This (unconditional) assignment is what the earlier logic attempted
>> to avoid: We must not blindly set this (and in particular not blindly
>> overwrite a previously set valid value), and in order to do so we
>> need to know whether to trust devid or handle. I'm therefore going
>> to apply only the first hunk - being a clear and obvious bug fix - for
>> the time being.
>>

> But since we only allow one HPET in the system, and if users want to 
> override the one that is in the IVRS (the buggy one)
> we should allow this, right?  Otherwise, if the special->handle doesn't 
> match, it would end up causing this logic to complain
> about multiple HPETs.

We must not allow multiple HPET entries in the ACPI tables to
confuse us and store a bad IOMMU pointer.

I understand this part and agree. Currently, the patch does not allow multiple HPET in the system.
If user specifies the ivrs_hpet, that will be the one that get used, and ignore the one that
is in the IVRS. Although, it will be pointing to the IOMMU which lists HPET in the IVRS.

However, if IVRS is listing multiple HPETs in different IOMMUs, then it will just default to the first IOMMU.
I don't see this case happening though since HPET is in the Southbridge which only has one in the system.

Am I missing any thing?

Suravee

And yes, we also must not wrongly complain about multiple HEPTs.

Jan