On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 11:34 AM Salil Mehta <salil.mehta@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: Friday, September 15, 2023 9:45 AM > > To: Russell King (Oracle) <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: Salil Mehta <salil.mehta@xxxxxxxxxx>; Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx>; > > Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@xxxxxxxxxx>; James Morse > > <james.morse@xxxxxxx>; linux-pm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; loongarch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > > linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > > riscv@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; x86@xxxxxxxxxx; Jean- > > Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@xxxxxxxxxx>; jianyong.wu@xxxxxxx; > > justin.he@xxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 27/35] ACPICA: Add new MADT GICC flags fields > > [code first?] > > > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 9:09 AM Russell King (Oracle) > > <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 02:29:13AM +0000, Salil Mehta wrote: > > > > On x86, during init, if the MADT entry for LAPIC is found to be > > > > online-capable and is enabled as well then possible and present > > > > > > Note that the ACPI spec says enabled + online-capable isn't defined. > > > > > > "The information conveyed by this bit depends on the value of the > > > Enabled bit. If the Enabled bit is set, this bit is reserved and > > > must be zero." > > > > > > So, if x86 is doing something with the enabled && online-capable > > > state (other than ignoring the online-capable) then technically it > > > is doing something that the spec doesn't define > > > > And so it is wrong. > > > Or maybe, specification has not been updated yet. code-first? Well, if you are aware of any change requests related to this and posted as code-first, please let me know.
