Hi Myron,
It is great to see that this functionality found some care after
2+ years :)
Please check your patches to conform to patch submission guidelines,
namely 80 char string limit... :) scripts/checkpatch.pl is quite good for
such purpose.
Myron Stowe wrote:
Len, Alexey:
The following three item patch series fixes an issue with the introduction
of > 256 processor declaration support: "Allow processor to be declared with
the Device() instead of Processor()" (git SHA 11bf04c4).
The root issue is in the lsapic mapping logic of drivers/acpi/processor_core.c.
Currently, the logic tries both types of matches irregardless of declaration
type and relies on one failing. According to the spec - lsapic mapping is
dependent on how the processor object was declared: CPUs declared using the
"Processor" statement should use the Local SAPIC's 'processor_id', and CPUs
declared using the "Device" statement should use the 'uid'.
Reference: Section 8.4 Declaring Processors; Section 5.2.11.13 Local SAPIC
Structure. "Advanced Configuration and Power Interface Specification",
Revision 3.0b, October 2006.
[PATCH 1/3] disambiguates the processor declaration type that is currently
conflated so that subsequent logic can behave based explicitly on the
declaration's type. I expect the disambiguation this patch introduces will
also be advantageous when extending the > 256 processor support for x86 via
x2APIC.
[PATCH 2/3] addresses the root issue as stated above. With respect to this
patch I'm ambivalent about the 'printk' introduced in "map_lsapic_id()" -
perhaps it should be removed?
Errors causing change from default behaviour should be visible, so
printk is ok, please only make it conform to 80 char string length limit.
[PATCH 3/3] is non-functional white space/spelling fixes in the related code.
While the specific fix is ia64 focused the underlying code affected is common
to both x86 and ia64.
That was intentional to have it common, as the less frequently used
case will rotten without care.
I have tested on the following platform/namespace
combinations:
ia64 with "Processor" type namespace processor declarations,
ia64 with "Device" type namespace processor declarations,
x86 with "Processor" type namespace processor declarations.
I had no machine with second variant, so it probably didn't work there,
right?
Note that this patch series does *not* handle "Device" type processor
declarations that contain a string type _UID object under the processor
device's scope (I am currently not aware of any platforms that have such to
test against).
Original didn't do it either -- it is too difficult and does not give
any advantage
to HW vendors over numeral ID.
Regards,
Alex.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
