Re: [PATCH v9 4/6] ACPI: HMAT: Fix handling of changes from ACPI 6.2 to ACPI 6.3
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
Date: 2020-08-20 22:21:40
Also in:
linux-acpi, linux-api, linux-mm, lkml
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 10:51:09PM +0800, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
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@huawei.com> --- 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) {
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) {
target = find_mem_target(p->memory_PD);
if (!target) {
pr_debug("HMAT: Memory Domain missing from SRAT\n");
--
2.19.1_______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel