On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 8:21 PM Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. Well, I'm not sure if everybody is in agreement on that. > 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. In my view, ACPI_HMAT need not be an opt-in in the first place. The only reason to avoid compiling HMAT parsing it would be if there were no users of it in the kernel IMO.
