From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCF411465A0 for ; Thu, 26 Sep 2024 12:03:52 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.176.79.56 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1727352234; cv=none; b=jhHYBFyIkA4ZTvB5in6tjsVctnf7f2OGYI0sqrtxCSd2RIXWkanYQVp91r6XoYdzZPPf3b4NoiWYsr8lKpBzfFRTHY/3ED/PB4RNxmIluL+v3JOSOfkv6HKvhspe/z3+EwN61HKycp02oJsSuWybOZiRybkgz54h/75JadxoqIY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1727352234; c=relaxed/simple; bh=YjCgyXyhQaU9OLHEPxfhFpPNeBb3w/VF5k8ldAjuI/4=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=ol5N89HhqV1zriL/XJllRHIoDfzWIppN+FTkOTONvGQH7/XQ7nHXrBAzrltpxoZqKSHzA4Zv4V9UFwC4UQjQKXCKJ/rBPdYR+8wZBqrafmN1fbhNe/oswZKnbpa02YAsTMloiCuDTgDzcf1PYZ2zzDcZQNjHHUZRsT7IsFewhBs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=Huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.176.79.56 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=Huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.31]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4XDsZk3rZqz6K9kS; Thu, 26 Sep 2024 19:59:10 +0800 (CST) Received: from frapeml500008.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.182.85.71]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5EDE11401F3; Thu, 26 Sep 2024 20:03:50 +0800 (CST) Received: from localhost (10.203.177.66) by frapeml500008.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.71) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.39; Thu, 26 Sep 2024 14:03:49 +0200 Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2024 13:03:48 +0100 From: Jonathan Cameron To: Mauro Carvalho Chehab CC: Igor Mammedov , Shiju Jose , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Ani Sinha , Dongjiu Geng , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/15] acpi/ghes: move offset calculus to a separate function Message-ID: <20240926130348.00005e45@Huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <5e8c2f0267a21d05ed09c8af616a92d94638c474.1727236561.git.mchehab+huawei@kernel.org> References: <5e8c2f0267a21d05ed09c8af616a92d94638c474.1727236561.git.mchehab+huawei@kernel.org> Organization: Huawei Technologies Research and Development (UK) Ltd. X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.1.0 (GTK 3.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: lhrpeml500004.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.9) To frapeml500008.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.71) On Wed, 25 Sep 2024 06:04:15 +0200 Mauro Carvalho Chehab wrote: > Currently, CPER address location is calculated as an offset of > the hardware_errors table. It is also badly named, as the > offset actually used is the address where the CPER data starts, > and not the beginning of the error source. > > Move the logic which calculates such offset to a separate > function, in preparation for a patch that will be changing the > logic to calculate it from the HEST table. > > While here, properly name the variable which stores the cper > address. > > Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab Trivial comment inline. Given this is a placeholder for more radical refactor I'll not comment on the maths etc being less flexible than it will hopefully end up! Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron > void ghes_record_cper_errors(const void *cper, size_t len, > uint16_t source_id, Error **errp) > { > - /* > - * As the current version supports only one source, the ack offset is > - * just sizeof(uint64_t). > - */ > - read_ack_register_addr = start_addr + sizeof(uint64_t); > - > cpu_physical_memory_read(read_ack_register_addr, > - &read_ack_register, sizeof(read_ack_register)); > + &read_ack_register, sizeof(read_ack_register)); > Wrong patch for this alignment tidy up? Or are my eyes deceiving me and there is more going on here... J