On 02/07/18 10:06, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 6:17 PM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> Currently we use the ACPI processor ID only for the leaf/processor nodes >> as the specification states it must match the value of ACPI processor ID >> field in the processor’s entry in the MADT. >> >> However, if a PPTT structure represents processors group, it match a >> processor container UID in the namespace and ACPI_PPTT_ACPI_PROCESSOR_ID_VALID >> flag describe whether the ACPI processor ID is valid. >> >> Lets use UID whenever ACPI_PPTT_ACPI_PROCESSOR_ID_VALID is set to be >> consistent instead of using table offset as it's currently done for non >> leaf nodes. >> >> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> >> --- >> drivers/acpi/pptt.c | 10 ++++++++-- >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> Hi, >> >> There's ongoing discussion on assigning ID based in OS using simple >> counters. It can never be consistent with firmware's view. So if the >> firmware provides valid UID for non-processors node, we must use it. > > OK > > Do you regard this as a fix for the recently merged PPTT material? If > so, I should apply it as a fix for 4.18. > Yes, it should be considered as fix IMO. -- Regards, Sudeep -- 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
