From: "Kani, Toshimitsu" <toshi.kani@hpe.com>
To: "bp@alien8.de" <bp@alien8.de>, "rafael@kernel.org" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
"lenb@kernel.org" <lenb@kernel.org>,
"mchehab@kernel.org" <mchehab@kernel.org>,
"tony.luck@intel.com" <tony.luck@intel.com>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-edac@vger.kernel.org" <linux-edac@vger.kernel.org>,
"rjw@rjwysocki.net" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/5] ACPI / blacklist: add acpi_match_platform_list()
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 21:06:42 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1503349011.2042.168.camel@hpe.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJZ5v0iMR-m6JRDJBeYLDH3uz4_gGAoxQY6Yk3-vf9L=x6G-_A@mail.gmail.com>
On Mon, 2017-08-21 at 22:31 +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 7:36 PM, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 05:23:37PM +0000, Kani, Toshimitsu wrote:
> > > > > 'data' here is private to the caller. So, I do not think we
> > > > > need to define the bits. Shall I change the name to
> > > > > 'driver_data' to make it more explicit?
> > > >
> > > > You changed it to 'data'. It was a u32-used-as-boolean
> > > > is_critical_error before.
> > > >
> > > > So you can just as well make it into flags and people can
> > > > extend those flags if needed. A flag bit should be enough in
> > > > most cases anyway. If they really need driver_data, then they
> > > > can add a void *member.
> > >
> > > Hmm.. In patch 2, intel_pstate_platform_pwr_mgmt_exists() uses
> > > this field for PSS and PCC, which are enum values. I think we
> > > should allow drivers to set any values here. I agree that it may
> > > need to be void * if we also allow drivers to set a pointer here.
> >
> > Let's see what Rafael prefers.
>
> I would retain the is_critical_error field and use that for printing
> the recoverable / non-recoverable message. This is kind of
> orthogonal to whether or not any extra data is needed and that can be
> an additional field. In that case unsigned long should be sufficient
> to accommodate a pointer if need be.
Yes, we will retain the field. The question is whether this field
should be retained as a driver's private data or ACPI-managed flags.
My patch implements the former, which lets the callers to define the
data values. For instance, acpi_blacklisted() uses this field as
is_critical_error value, and intel_pstate_platform_pwr_mgmt_exists()
uses it as oem_pwr_table value.
Boris suggested the latter, which lets ACPI to define the flags, which
are then used by the callers. For instance, he suggested ACPI to
define bit0 as is_critical_error.
#define ACPI_PLAT_IS_CRITICAL_ERROR BIT(0)
Thanks,
-Toshi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-08-21 21:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-08-18 19:46 [PATCH v3 0/5] enable ghes_edac on selected platforms Toshi Kani
2017-08-18 19:46 ` [PATCH v3 1/5] ACPI / blacklist: add acpi_match_platform_list() Toshi Kani
2017-08-21 11:27 ` Borislav Petkov
2017-08-21 12:25 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-08-21 13:20 ` [PATCH] ACPICA: Check whether ACPI is disabled before getting a table Borislav Petkov
2017-08-21 13:30 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-08-21 15:34 ` Borislav Petkov
2017-09-03 0:43 ` kbuild test robot
2017-08-21 16:41 ` [PATCH v3 1/5] ACPI / blacklist: add acpi_match_platform_list() Kani, Toshimitsu
2017-08-21 17:04 ` Borislav Petkov
2017-08-21 17:23 ` Kani, Toshimitsu
2017-08-21 17:36 ` Borislav Petkov
2017-08-21 20:31 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-08-21 21:06 ` Kani, Toshimitsu [this message]
2017-08-21 21:49 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-08-21 22:21 ` Kani, Toshimitsu
2017-08-21 22:26 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-08-18 19:46 ` [PATCH v3 2/5] intel_pstate: convert to use acpi_match_platform_list() Toshi Kani
2017-08-21 17:53 ` Srinivas Pandruvada
2017-08-23 15:46 ` Borislav Petkov
2017-08-23 15:56 ` Kani, Toshimitsu
2017-08-18 19:46 ` [PATCH v3 3/5] ghes_edac: add platform check to enable ghes_edac Toshi Kani
2017-08-23 16:20 ` Borislav Petkov
2017-08-23 20:46 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2017-08-24 7:54 ` Borislav Petkov
2017-08-18 19:46 ` [PATCH v3 4/5] EDAC: add edac_get_owner() to check MC owner Toshi Kani
2017-08-18 19:46 ` [PATCH v3 5/5] edac drivers: add MC owner check in init Toshi Kani
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=1503349011.2042.168.camel@hpe.com \
--to=toshi.kani@hpe.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=lenb@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-edac@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mchehab@kernel.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=tony.luck@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox