On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 10:28 AM Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 17:40:52 +0100 > "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > Modify acpi_processor_add() return an error if _STA returns the enabled > > bit clear for the given processor device, so as to avoid using processors > > that don't decode their resources, as per the ACPI specification. [1] > > > > Link: https://uefi.org/specs/ACPI/6.5/06_Device_Configuration.html#sta-device-status # [1] > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx> > > Sorry for lack of reply on discussion. No worries. > Your follow up mails never reached my inbox for some reason /me blames spam filters somewhere. > so I just caught up on lore. I'll keep an eye on > the archives to make sure I don't miss further discussion. Thanks! > Agreed that functional isn't relevant here so this patch is correct. > Also agree that it would be nice to clarify the spec as you mentioned > to say that bit 1 is reserved if bit 0 of _STA result is clear. > Depending on interpretation it's either a clarification or a relaxation > of current statements, so should be uncontroversial (famous last words ;) Right. > +CC kangkang so this is on his radar as an ACPI cleanup suggestion. > For his reference, discussion is here: > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-acpi/CAJZ5v0jjD=KN0pOuWZZ8DT5yHdu03KgOSHYe3wB7h2vafNa44w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> Thanks for all of the reviews!
