public inbox for linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Luck, Tony" <tony.luck@intel.com>
To: Yazen Ghannam <yazen.ghannam@amd.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>,
	Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@kernel.org>,
	<linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	<patches@lists.linux.dev>, Andi Kleen <andi.kleen@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI: APEI: GHES: Improve ghes_notify_nmi() status check
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2025 15:53:30 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <aQvjenMVnpOgne1t@agluck-desk3> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20251105211924.GA1264471@yaz-khff2.amd.com>

On Wed, Nov 05, 2025 at 04:19:24PM -0500, Yazen Ghannam wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 03, 2025 at 03:05:47PM -0800, Tony Luck wrote:
> > N.B. I only talked to an Intel BIOS expert about this. GHES code is shared by
> > other architectures, so it would be wise to get confirmation on whether this
> > assumption applies to all, or is Intel (or X86) specific.
> 
> I think that is how the ACPI spec describes it.
> https://uefi.org/specs/ACPI/6.5/18_Platform_Error_Interfaces.html?highlight=hest#error-source-discovery
> 
> The HEST and other tables are fixed at init time. There's an ACPI notify
> event for if/when a device method needs to be re-evaluted, but I don't
> think anything in APEI expects that.

Yazen,

Thanks for looking.

James Morse pointed me to the fact that HAVE_ACPI_APEI_NMI
is only selected by arch/x86/Kconfig. So scope is limited
to x86.

That "18.3 Error Source Discovery" section of the ACPI spec feels
pretty vague. The "During initialization, OSPM examines the tables"
bit is comforting, but I was worried that although the tables are
static (so the generic ACPI address from the NMI error source
shouldn't change) there is an extra level of indirection where
that points to a location that holds the address of the error
status block. Some might not consider that as part of the "tables".

Further pondering has me 99% convinced that there would be no
reason for firmware to update that pointer (though it has led
me to wonder why that indirection exists).

Rafael: I think this patch is good to go.

-Tony

  reply	other threads:[~2025-11-05 23:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-11-03 23:05 [PATCH] ACPI: APEI: GHES: Improve ghes_notify_nmi() status check Tony Luck
2025-11-05 21:19 ` Yazen Ghannam
2025-11-05 23:53   ` Luck, Tony [this message]
2025-11-06  1:46 ` Shuai Xue
2025-11-06  2:09   ` Luck, Tony
2025-11-06  5:04     ` Shuai Xue
2025-11-06 18:03       ` Luck, Tony
2025-11-07  2:20         ` Shuai Xue

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=aQvjenMVnpOgne1t@agluck-desk3 \
    --to=tony.luck@intel.com \
    --cc=andi.kleen@intel.com \
    --cc=bp@alien8.de \
    --cc=guohanjun@huawei.com \
    --cc=linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mchehab@kernel.org \
    --cc=patches@lists.linux.dev \
    --cc=rafael@kernel.org \
    --cc=yazen.ghannam@amd.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