On 10/3/2023 11:50 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 8:06 PM Jarred White
> <jarredwhite@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> To align with ACPI 6.3+, since bit_width can be any 8-bit value, we
cannot
>> depend on it being always on a clean 8b boundary. Instead, use
access_width
>> to determine the size and use the offset and width to shift and mask the
>> bit swe want to read/write out. Make sure to add a check for system
memory
>> since pcc redefines the access_width to subspace id.
> This is fine, but what if there are systems in the field where
> bit_width is invalid, but they just happen to work because of the way
> it is currently handled?
For the kernel coding style issues, I will clean up for the v2 patch.
On the invalid bit_width for systems out there in the field, do you have
any suggestions on how to handle this particular scenario? Would it be
appropriate to add a kernel parameter flag that can revert back to the
previous implementation?
P.S. Sorry for the HTML email.
Thanks,
Jarred
