From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lukasz Anaczkowski Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86, acpi: Handle lapic/x2apic entries in MADT Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 19:49:28 +0200 Message-ID: <1440611369-26314-1-git-send-email-lukasz.anaczkowski@intel.com> References: <55DDB45D.2030901@arm.com> Return-path: In-Reply-To: <55DDB45D.2030901@arm.com> Sender: linux-pm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: marc.zyngier@arm.com, lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com, tomasz.nowicki@linaro.org, tglx@linutronix.de, mingo@redhat.com, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, jason@lakedaemon.net Cc: rjw@rjwysocki.net, len.brown@intel.com, pavel@ucw.cz, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Marc nad Lorenzo, First of all appologies for breaking arm64 (again) and thank you for debugging effort. I own you. > - count is only incremented when max_entries != 0, as you noticed You are right, sorry for that, it's fixed in v3. > - With max_entries != 0, count now represent the sum of all matches > Is that expected? I have no strong opinion on that one. All of the x86 ACPI entries handling only checks for count < 0, or uses count from the acpi_subtable_proc structure (and that's why I didn't noticed the mainline breakage). If you think it's not correct or less usable than other approach, let me know. > - The proc iteration stops after the first match. Why? So, the initial implementation of the acpi_parse_entries accepted single handler for the ACPI table. Now, with this change, assumption is that different handlers for different tables/subtables are passed, meaning only one can meet entry->type == proc[i].id condition. mainline breakage). This approach saves one local varaible, but I don't think this is ultimate argument :) > - The test for max_entries is done inside the proc loop. Why? That's obviously wrong in context of the overall wrong counting. > [...] this should be documented and agreed upon. I've added description with assumptions. Again, if you think it's not correct, let me know. Tomasz Nowicki wrote: > should acpi_table_parse_entries suppose to be removed above? Thanks for pointing this out. I've missed implementation of acpi_table_parse_entries when was backporting initial patch. I've added it back. Cheers, Lukasz