Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 29 Feb 2024 10:19:11 +1300 | Subject | Re: [PATCHv8 17/17] ACPI: tables: Print MULTIPROC_WAKEUP when MADT is parsed | From | "Huang, Kai" <> |
| |
On 29/02/2024 4:22 am, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 11:08:38AM +1300, Huang, Kai wrote: >> >> >> On 28/02/2024 10:24 am, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: >>> When MADT is parsed, print MULTIPROC_WAKEUP information: >>> >>> ACPI: MP Wakeup (version[1], mailbox[0x7fffd000], reset[0x7fffe068]) >>> >>> This debug information will be very helpful during bring up. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> >>> Reviewed-by: Baoquan He <bhe@redhat.com> >>> --- >>> drivers/acpi/tables.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ >>> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+) >>> >>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/tables.c b/drivers/acpi/tables.c >>> index b07f7d091d13..c59a3617bca7 100644 >>> --- a/drivers/acpi/tables.c >>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/tables.c >>> @@ -198,6 +198,20 @@ void acpi_table_print_madt_entry(struct acpi_subtable_header *header) >>> } >>> break; >>> + case ACPI_MADT_TYPE_MULTIPROC_WAKEUP: >>> + { >>> + struct acpi_madt_multiproc_wakeup *p = >>> + (struct acpi_madt_multiproc_wakeup *)header; >>> + u64 reset_vector = 0; >>> + >>> + if (p->version >= ACPI_MADT_MP_WAKEUP_VERSION_V1) >>> + reset_vector = p->reset_vector; >>> + >>> + pr_debug("MP Wakeup (version[%d], mailbox[%#llx], reset[%#llx])\n", >>> + p->version, p->mailbox_address, reset_vector); >>> + } >>> + break; >>> + >> >> Hmm.. I hate to say, but maybe it is better to put this patch at some early >> place in this series w/o mailbox version and reset_vector, and add >> incremental changes where mailbox/reset_vector is introduced in this series. >> >> The advantage is in this way someone can just backport this patch to the old >> kernel if they care -- this should be part of commit f39642d0dbacd >> ("x86/acpi/x86/boot: Add multiprocessor wake-up support") anyway. > > It is not subject for backporting. It is just a cosmetics fix (or debug > facility). Any new MADT type would generate a warning. Nothing wrong with > it. >
OK fine to me. Thanks.
| |