On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 7:37 PM, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> if the vendor provide _PXM, that _PXM should be right and be >>> trusted. >>> >>> if the vendor does not provide _PXM, we can have command line >>> to input it before user can get one updated BIOS from vendor. >> >> So how about an incorrect _PXM, or a slightly inefficient one? >> Why shouldn't it be possible for the user to override it? > > Try to keep the code simple. > >> >> I mean, if we create a parameter space that tweaks data then why >> not make it complete and allow *all* firmware data to be >> (optionally) modified, from the kernel boot line? > > that pxm/node for pci device should be consistent with srat table etc, > so better solution is that BIOS keep them consistent. > > If BIOS provide _PXM for pci device, the _PXM should have more chance > to be right. > > Anyway if you insist that it should cover that wrong case, let me > check if it could be done simply. please check -v3, and it will add 40 lines. and -v2 is about 25 lines. Thanks Yinghai
Attachment:
busnum_node_v3.patch
Description: Binary data
