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, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,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 CD6ECC433E4 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:44:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C2B0207DA for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:44:36 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 9C2B0207DA Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=Huawei.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 30FD66B009D; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 04:44:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 2C1C86B009E; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 04:44:36 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 1D7B18D0005; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 04:44:36 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0083.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.83]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04AF26B009D for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 04:44:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin27.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF372173087A for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:44:35 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77173939710.27.pot63_200ad6627037 Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin27.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A15A3D663 for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:44:35 +0000 (UTC) X-HE-Tag: pot63_200ad6627037 X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 4014 Received: from huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [185.176.76.210]) by imf01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Fri, 21 Aug 2020 08:44:34 +0000 (UTC) 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 CC: , , , , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Bjorn Helgaas , , , Ingo Molnar , Thomas Gleixner , , Dan Williams , "Brice Goglin" , Sean V Kelley , 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 8A15A3D663 X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 100.00] X-Rspamd-Server: rspam03 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: 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 > >