From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sudeep.holla@arm.com (Sudeep Holla) Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 10:57:47 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] ACPI/PPTT: use ACPI ID whenever ACPI_PPTT_ACPI_PROCESSOR_ID_VALID is set In-Reply-To: References: <1530289077-2444-1-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> Message-ID: <3895a0d8-9cca-2512-a06e-0ee2ac7db773@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 02/07/18 10:06, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 6:17 PM, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> Currently we use the ACPI processor ID only for the leaf/processor nodes >> as the specification states it must match the value of ACPI processor ID >> field in the processor?s entry in the MADT. >> >> However, if a PPTT structure represents processors group, it match a >> processor container UID in the namespace and ACPI_PPTT_ACPI_PROCESSOR_ID_VALID >> flag describe whether the ACPI processor ID is valid. >> >> Lets use UID whenever ACPI_PPTT_ACPI_PROCESSOR_ID_VALID is set to be >> consistent instead of using table offset as it's currently done for non >> leaf nodes. >> >> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" >> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla >> --- >> drivers/acpi/pptt.c | 10 ++++++++-- >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> Hi, >> >> There's ongoing discussion on assigning ID based in OS using simple >> counters. It can never be consistent with firmware's view. So if the >> firmware provides valid UID for non-processors node, we must use it. > > OK > > Do you regard this as a fix for the recently merged PPTT material? If > so, I should apply it as a fix for 4.18. > Yes, it should be considered as fix IMO. -- Regards, Sudeep