From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-11.2 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_2 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E076C433E1 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:47:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from merlin.infradead.org (merlin.infradead.org [205.233.59.134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 18CE020720 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:47:21 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=lists.infradead.org header.i=@lists.infradead.org header.b="wSXvUDwM" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 18CE020720 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=Huawei.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.infradead.org; s=merlin.20170209; h=Sender:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Cc:List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Post:List-Archive: List-Unsubscribe:List-Id:MIME-Version:References:In-Reply-To:Message-ID: Subject:To:From:Date:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date: Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Owner; bh=9pm1fUyEgLv0PD0Gx4mt9BO0viiRjnGqnYjAUB/JCws=; b=wSXvUDwMN7Qgs2DN4W04/4VJ0 wDNId9iO1O3Aq+U9LoAEgxPQdwQjMNQ8U3wE64bVZYGg8+mA0kXlbUg+c3fkS4YvACuHIxpzn4NcH xCmEJV4Ln7eXCo/71OWa32JZUudEhSyqLx6C2H1Nq/X3/2pRdOOOe+v3M8zkm2AuarxVsYpWwWpTL GONTFug/czD5Hrd/QmcFHZVaAXvonEZmSKqg/FFOO01MSd0Z8j6LoNmfE07ZIhLnbEO/tshbPVmHB aaZgg4gqkavG5GxxxadUBAObbzFZcDlCBDIUWB/2mcM/mzZgOAP23H7Qd/3HiFy97ypErSazwVNOo OPS6ORIYg==; Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=merlin.infradead.org) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1k92fL-0007Iw-30; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:44:51 +0000 Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com ([185.176.76.210] helo=huawei.com) by merlin.infradead.org with esmtps (Exim 4.92.3 #3 (Red Hat Linux)) id 1k92fI-0007Hc-I7 for linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:44:49 +0000 Received: from lhreml710-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.18.7.108]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 7BF8DB45392C72EB1110; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 09:44:32 +0100 (IST) Received: from localhost (10.52.123.86) by lhreml710-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.61) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256) id 15.1.1913.5; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 09:44:31 +0100 Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2020 09:42:58 +0100 From: Jonathan Cameron To: Bjorn Helgaas Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 4/6] ACPI: HMAT: Fix handling of changes from ACPI 6.2 to ACPI 6.3 Message-ID: <20200821094258.00007925@Huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <20200820222129.GA1571389@bjorn-Precision-5520> References: <20200819145111.1715026-5-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> <20200820222129.GA1571389@bjorn-Precision-5520> Organization: Huawei Technologies Research and Development (UK) Ltd. X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.17.4 (GTK+ 2.24.32; i686-w64-mingw32) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [10.52.123.86] X-ClientProxiedBy: lhreml701-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.50) To lhreml710-chm.china.huawei.com (10.201.108.61) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20200821_044448_721695_D963D618 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 20.98 ) X-BeenThere: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: rafael@kernel.org, Lorenzo Pieralisi , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxarm@huawei.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, Ingo Molnar , Brice Goglin , Bjorn Helgaas , Thomas Gleixner , Dan Williams , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Sean V Kelley Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 17:21:29 -0500 Bjorn Helgaas wrote: > On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 10:51:09PM +0800, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > In ACPI 6.3, the Memory Proximity Domain Attributes Structure > > changed substantially. One of those changes was that the flag > > for "Memory Proximity Domain field is valid" was deprecated. > > > > This was because the field "Proximity Domain for the Memory" > > became a required field and hence having a validity flag makes > > no sense. > > > > So the correct logic is to always assume the field is there. > > Current code assumes it never is. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron > > --- > > drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c b/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c > > index 2c32cfb72370..07cfe50136e0 100644 > > --- a/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c > > @@ -424,7 +424,7 @@ static int __init hmat_parse_proximity_domain(union acpi_subtable_headers *heade > > pr_info("HMAT: Memory Flags:%04x Processor Domain:%u Memory Domain:%u\n", > > p->flags, p->processor_PD, p->memory_PD); > > > > - if (p->flags & ACPI_HMAT_MEMORY_PD_VALID && hmat_revision == 1) { > > + if ((p->flags & ACPI_HMAT_MEMORY_PD_VALID && hmat_revision == 1) || hmat_revision == 2) { > Hi Bjorn, > I hope/assume the spec is written in such a way that p->memory_PD is > required for any revision > 1? So maybe this should be: > > if ((p->flags & ACPI_HMAT_MEMORY_PD_VALID && hmat_revision == 1) || > hmat_revision > 1) { Good point. We have existing protections elsewhere against hmat_revision being anything other than 1 or 2, so we should aim to keep that in only one place. I'll tidy this up for v10. thanks, Jonathan > > > target = find_mem_target(p->memory_PD); > > if (!target) { > > pr_debug("HMAT: Memory Domain missing from SRAT\n"); > > -- > > 2.19.1 > > _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel