On 02/07/18 12:01, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 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?
Sure, since it was in the same release, I didn't add it.
Fixes: 2bd00bcd73e5 ("ACPI/PPTT: Add Processor Properties Topology Table
parsing")
--
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
