On Fri, 14 Mar 2025 09:38:24 -0400
Gregory Price <gourry@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 10:12:26AM +0000, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > On Thu, 13 Mar 2025 11:02:37 -0400
> > Gregory Price <gourry@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 02:09:07PM +0800, Yuquan Wang wrote:
> > > > @@ -441,6 +441,11 @@ static int __init acpi_parse_cfmws(union acpi_subtable_headers *header,
> > > > start = cfmws->base_hpa;
> > > > end = cfmws->base_hpa + cfmws->window_size;
> > > >
> > > > + if (srat_disabled()) {
> > > > + pr_err("SRAT is missing or bad while processing CFMWS.\n");
> > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > >
> > > I thought the srat was optional regardless of the presence of a CFMWS.
> > > Is this not the case?
> >
> > True in theory, but do we want to support it?
> >
> > I'd vote no unless someone is shipping such a system and can't fix it up.
> >
> > Jonathan
> >
>
> Well, this is really the patch trying to deal with that I suppose. The
> code here already states its creating 1 node per CFMWS in the absense of
> srat - but this patch just changes that and says "no nodes 4 u". I
> don't think that's what we want either.
Under this specific set of circumstances, "no nodes 4 u" is
to me a perfectly valid answer.
Jonathan
>
> ~Gregory
