From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_GIT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A1F8C43141 for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 16:18:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F24C22754B for ; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 16:18:08 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org F24C22754B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S936908AbeF2QSH (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:18:07 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:36712 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S936665AbeF2QSG (ORCPT ); Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:18:06 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C4A7D18A; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 09:18:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from usa.arm.com (unknown [10.1.210.28]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id B316C3F266; Fri, 29 Jun 2018 09:18:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Sudeep Holla To: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Jeremy Linton , shunyong.yang@hxt-semitech.com, yu.zheng@hxt-semitech.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com, Lorenzo Pieralisi , Andrew Jones , Sudeep Holla , "Rafael J. Wysocki" Subject: [PATCH] ACPI/PPTT: use ACPI ID whenever ACPI_PPTT_ACPI_PROCESSOR_ID_VALID is set Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2018 17:17:57 +0100 Message-Id: <1530289077-2444-1-git-send-email-sudeep.holla@arm.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.7.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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" Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla --- 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; return ACPI_PTR_DIFF(cpu_node, table); } -- 2.7.4