lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jun]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] ACPI/PPTT: use ACPI ID whenever ACPI_PPTT_ACPI_PROCESSOR_ID_VALID is set
From
Date
Hi,

On 06/29/2018 11:17 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> Currently we use the ACPI processor ID only for the leaf/processor nodes
> as the specification states it must match the value of ACPI processor ID
> field in the processor’s entry in the MADT.
>
> However, if a PPTT structure represents processors group, it match a
> processor container UID in the namespace and ACPI_PPTT_ACPI_PROCESSOR_ID_VALID
> flag describe whether the ACPI processor ID is valid.
>
> Lets use UID whenever ACPI_PPTT_ACPI_PROCESSOR_ID_VALID is set to be
> consistent instead of using table offset as it's currently done for non
> leaf nodes.
>
> Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> ---
> drivers/acpi/pptt.c | 10 ++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> Hi,
>
> There's ongoing discussion on assigning ID based in OS using simple
> counters. It can never be consistent with firmware's view. So if the
> firmware provides valid UID for non-processors node, we must use it.
>
> Regards,
> Sudeep
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pptt.c b/drivers/acpi/pptt.c
> index e5ea1974d1e3..d1e26cb599bf 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/pptt.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pptt.c
> @@ -481,8 +481,14 @@ static int topology_get_acpi_cpu_tag(struct acpi_table_header *table,
> if (cpu_node) {
> cpu_node = acpi_find_processor_package_id(table, cpu_node,
> level, flag);
> - /* Only the first level has a guaranteed id */
> - if (level == 0)
> + /*
> + * As per specification if the processor structure represents
> + * an actual processor, then ACPI processor ID must be valid.
> + * For processor containers ACPI_PPTT_ACPI_PROCESSOR_ID_VALID
> + * should be set if the UID is valid
> + */
> + if (level == 0 ||
> + cpu_node->flags & ACPI_PPTT_ACPI_PROCESSOR_ID_VALID)
> return cpu_node->acpi_processor_id;

While, for some machines this likely helps create more human readable
ID's... What happens when the ID namespaces conflict with each other?

AKA, I'm a little shy of this change because your going from something
we can guarantee is unique to depending on an portion of the PPTT
definition that has a couple different ways that it can be interpreted.

OTOH the change is probably safe at the moment because i don't think
anyone has partially marked nodes at a given PPTT "level" valid, or put
structures that aren't part of the PE/cache's in the tree (outside of my
juno test tree with the GPU's/etc).


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-06-29 20:19    [W:0.118 / U:0.108 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site