Re: [PATCH] PCI: Warn about host bridge device when its numa node is NO_NODE

[Yunsheng Lin <linyunsheng@huawei.com>]

On 2019/10/22 21:55, Robin Murphy wrote:
> 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.

Will drop the "by BIOS" part if there is another version.
Tnanks for clarifying.

> 
> Robin.
> 
> .
>