On 21/10/2019 05:05, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
On 2019/10/19 16:34, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 02:45:43PM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
+ if (nr_node_ids > 1 && dev_to_node(bus->bridge) == NUMA_NO_NODE)
+ dev_err(bus->bridge, FW_BUG "No node assigned on NUMA capable HW by BIOS. Please contact your vendor for updates.\n");
+
The whole idea of mentioning a BIOS in architeture indepent code doesn't
make sense at all.
[ Come to think of it, I'm sure an increasing number of x86 firmwares
don't even implement a PC BIOS any more... ]
In all fairness, the server-class Arm-based machines I've come across so
far do seem to consistently call their EFI firmware images "BIOS"
despite the clear anachronism. At least the absurdity of conflating a
system setup program with a semiconductor process seems to have mostly
died out ;)
Mentioning the BIOS is to tell user what firmware is broken, so that
user can report this to their vendor by referring the specific firmware.
It seems we can specific the node through different ways(DT, ACPI, etc).
Is there a better name for mentioning instead of BIOS, or we should do
the checking and warning in the architeture dependent code?
Or maybe just remove the BIOS from the above log?
Even though there may be some degree of historical convention hanging
around on ACPI-based systems, that argument almost certainly doesn't
hold for OF/FDT/etc. - the "[Firmware Bug]:" prefix is hopefully
indicative enough, so I'd say just drop the "by BIOS" part.
Robin.
