On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 10:48 AM Keith Busch <keith.busch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 20, 2019 at 11:02:01PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 6:10 PM Keith Busch <keith.busch@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > config ACPI_HMAT > > > bool "ACPI Heterogeneous Memory Attribute Table Support" > > > depends on ACPI_NUMA > > > + select HMEM_REPORTING > > > > If you want to do this here, I'm not sure that defining HMEM_REPORTING > > as a user-selectable option is a good idea. In particular, I don't > > really think that setting ACPI_HMAT without it makes a lot of sense. > > Apart from this, the patch looks reasonable to me. > > I'm trying to implement based on the feedback, but I'm a little confused. > > As I have it at the moment, HMEM_REPORTING is not user-prompted, so > another option needs to turn it on. I have ACPI_HMAT do that here. > > So when you say it's a bad idea to make HMEM_REPORTING user selectable, > isn't it already not user selectable? > > If I do it the other way around, that's going to make HMEM_REPORTING > complicated if a non-ACPI implementation wants to report HMEM > properties. Agree. If a platform supports these HMEM properties then they should be reported. ACPI_HMAT is that opt-in for ACPI based platforms, and other archs can do something similar. It's not clear that one would ever want to opt-in to HMAT support and opt-out of reporting any of it to userspace.
