On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 12:48:33PM +0000, John Garry wrote: > On 12/02/2020 11:59, Sudeep Holla wrote: [...] > > Yes, as mentioned above. We are not going to do extra work for lazy firmware. > > I don't think it's reasonable to just label this as lazy. The table may just > not have the flag set unintentionally. FW and software guys make mistakes, > like the mistakes in PPTT, itself. > We are not talking about flags, it's UID and it is pretty important if there are more than one objects of same time. > > Linux also will be lazy on such platform and provide weird unique numbers > > like in the above case you have mentioned. > > Personally I think that the kernel can be do better than provide meaningless > values like this, since it knows the processor IDs and which physical > package they belong to. > This was discussed quite a lot, I can dig and point you to it. That's the reason for choosing offset. We are *not going back* to this again. Fix the firmware before it gets copied for all future platforms and Linux has to deal with that *forever*. > If not, at least make the user know of potential deficiencies in the table. > How ? What are your suggestions ? Does adding a warning or note that UID is missing and offset is chosen help ? I am kind of fine with that. -- Regards, Sudeep
