From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Punit Agrawal Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] GHES: Move memory initialisation to ghes_probe() Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 11:31:57 +0100 Message-ID: <87fuctp1eq.fsf@e105922-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <20170801133608.21017-1-punit.agrawal@arm.com> <20170801133608.21017-3-punit.agrawal@arm.com> <20170814192256.56zoo5hgbyake25b@pd.tnic> <87o9rhp2f6.fsf@e105922-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20170815083543.rz7lr4sbjcn65xc4@pd.tnic> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Return-path: Received: from usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:49844 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753423AbdHOKb7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Aug 2017 06:31:59 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20170815083543.rz7lr4sbjcn65xc4@pd.tnic> (Borislav Petkov's message of "Tue, 15 Aug 2017 10:35:43 +0200") Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org To: Borislav Petkov Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com, sudeep.holla@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J . Wysocki" , James Morse [ thanks for dropping the bad email! ] Borislav Petkov writes: > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 11:10:05AM +0100, Punit Agrawal wrote: >> In the absence of any GHES entries these are wasted. > > I know. This whole APEI init code would need a proper cleanup, like > acpi_pci_root_init() calls acpi_hest_init() and it shouldn't have to > communicate through a variable with GHES whether to init or not but it > should initialize GHES itself. And ghes_init() being a device_initcall() > is just yuck. I'd seen the link between acpi_pci_root_init() and acpi_hest_init() but didn't want to open another can of worms... :) $SUBJECT was my attempt (small) at improving the situation but I guess I didn't go far enough. > > Something for the todo list I guess... > >> The system does not provide the Hardware Error Source Table (HEST) which >> is checked in the hest driver (drivers/acpi/apei/hest.c). >> >> I think I'll go with your original suggestion to change hest_disable >> from a boolean to something with more states. Re-checking for the HEST >> table again feels like duplication. >> >> Makes sense? > > Right, and then depending on the setting of hest_disable, either issue > the "HEST is not enabled" message or not. Ack! > > Thanks. > > -- > Regards/Gruss, > Boris. > > SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)