On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 11:57 AM, Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 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. So any chance to provide a Fixes: tag? -- 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
