Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] acpi: numa: Add setting of generic port system locality attributes

[Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@Huawei.com>]

On Fri, 19 May 2023 09:24:38 -0700
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com> wrote:

> Add generic port support for the parsing of HMAT system locality sub-table.
> The attributes will be added to the third array member of the access
> coordinates in order to not mix with the existing memory attributes. It only
> provides the system locality attributes from initator to the generic port
> targets and is missing the rest of the data to the actual memory device.
> 
> The complete attributes will be updated when a memory device is
> attached and the system locality information is calculated end to end.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com>

Missing 
---
here

As a passing comment, hmat_parse_locality() is awfully deeply nested
- maybe worth looking to see if some of the deeply nested stuff can be
factored out...  That would be a new patch however


> 
> v2:
> - Fix commit log runon sentence. (Jonathan)
> - Add a check for memory type for skipping other access levels. (Jonathan)
> - NODE_ACCESS_CLASS_GENPORT to NODE_ACCESS_CLASS_GENPORT_SINK. (Jonathan)
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c |   10 ++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c b/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c
> index e2ab1cce0add..82320c92abed 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c
> @@ -60,6 +60,7 @@ struct target_cache {
>  enum {
>  	NODE_ACCESS_CLASS_0 = 0,
>  	NODE_ACCESS_CLASS_1,
> +	NODE_ACCESS_CLASS_GENPORT_SINK,
>  	NODE_ACCESS_CLASS_MAX,
>  };
>  
> @@ -368,6 +369,15 @@ static __init int hmat_parse_locality(union acpi_subtable_headers *header,
>  			if (mem_hier == ACPI_HMAT_MEMORY) {
>  				target = find_mem_target(targs[targ]);
>  				if (target && target->processor_pxm == inits[init]) {
> +					if (*target->device_handle) {
> +						hmat_update_target_access(target, type, value,
> +								NODE_ACCESS_CLASS_GENPORT_SINK);
> +						if ((hmat_loc->flags &
> +						     ACPI_HMAT_MEMORY_HIERARCHY) ==
> +						    ACPI_HMAT_MEMORY)
> +							continue;

I'm confused.  Isn't this already what was checked for with
if (mem_heir == ACPI_HMAT_MEMORY)?

> +					}
> +
>  					hmat_update_target_access(target, type, value,
>  								  NODE_ACCESS_CLASS_0);
>  					/* If the node has a CPU, update access 1 */
> 
>