Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] ACPI: scan: Make acpi_processor_add() check the device enabled bit

Rafael J. Wysocki
2024-02-27T11:14:03Z

On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 10:28 AM Jonathan Cameron
<Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 17:40:52 +0100
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
>
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> >
> > Modify acpi_processor_add() return an error if _STA returns the enabled
> > bit clear for the given processor device, so as to avoid using processors
> > that don't decode their resources, as per the ACPI specification. [1]
> >
> > Link: https://uefi.org/specs/ACPI/6.5/06_Device_Configuration.html#sta-device-status # [1]
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>
> Sorry for lack of reply on discussion.

No worries.

> Your follow up mails never reached my inbox for some reason

/me blames spam filters somewhere.

> so I just caught up on lore. I'll keep an eye on
> the archives to make sure I don't miss further discussion.

Thanks!

> Agreed that functional isn't relevant here so this patch is correct.
> Also agree that it would be nice to clarify the spec as you mentioned
> to say that bit 1 is reserved if bit 0 of _STA result is clear.
> Depending on interpretation it's either a clarification or a relaxation
> of current statements, so should be uncontroversial (famous last words ;)

Right.

> +CC kangkang so this is on his radar as an ACPI cleanup suggestion.
> For his reference, discussion is here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-acpi/CAJZ5v0jjD=KN0pOuWZZ8DT5yHdu03KgOSHYe3wB7h2vafNa44w@mail.gmail.com/
>
> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>

Thanks for all of the reviews!