On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 17:21:29 -0500
Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 10:51:09PM +0800, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> > In ACPI 6.3, the Memory Proximity Domain Attributes Structure
> > changed substantially. One of those changes was that the flag
> > for "Memory Proximity Domain field is valid" was deprecated.
> >
> > This was because the field "Proximity Domain for the Memory"
> > became a required field and hence having a validity flag makes
> > no sense.
> >
> > So the correct logic is to always assume the field is there.
> > Current code assumes it never is.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c b/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c
> > index 2c32cfb72370..07cfe50136e0 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c
> > @@ -424,7 +424,7 @@ static int __init hmat_parse_proximity_domain(union acpi_subtable_headers *heade
> > pr_info("HMAT: Memory Flags:%04x Processor Domain:%u Memory Domain:%u\n",
> > p->flags, p->processor_PD, p->memory_PD);
> >
> > - if (p->flags & ACPI_HMAT_MEMORY_PD_VALID && hmat_revision == 1) {
> > + if ((p->flags & ACPI_HMAT_MEMORY_PD_VALID && hmat_revision == 1) || hmat_revision == 2) {
>
Hi Bjorn,
> I hope/assume the spec is written in such a way that p->memory_PD is
> required for any revision > 1? So maybe this should be:
>
> if ((p->flags & ACPI_HMAT_MEMORY_PD_VALID && hmat_revision == 1) ||
> hmat_revision > 1) {
Good point. We have existing protections elsewhere against hmat_revision
being anything other than 1 or 2, so we should aim to keep that in only one place.
I'll tidy this up for v10.
thanks,
Jonathan
>
> > target = find_mem_target(p->memory_PD);
> > if (!target) {
> > pr_debug("HMAT: Memory Domain missing from SRAT\n");
> > --
> > 2.19.1
> >
