From patchwork Mon Sep 7 14:03:05 2020 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Jonathan Cameron X-Patchwork-Id: 11761117 Return-Path: Received: from mail.kernel.org (pdx-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [172.30.200.123]) by pdx-korg-patchwork-2.web.codeaurora.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A95CE746 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 14:06:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60DF52176B for ; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 14:06:56 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 60DF52176B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 95DF46B0068; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 10:06:55 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: linux-mm-outgoing@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 90E2A6B006E; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 10:06:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 84B806B0070; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 10:06:55 -0400 (EDT) X-Original-To: linux-mm@kvack.org X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0116.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.116]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 702406B0068 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 10:06:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin04.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CE981EE6 for ; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 14:06:55 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77236441590.04.form38_160b2d1270cc Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251]) by smtpin04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08D7E8001B0C for ; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 14:06:55 +0000 (UTC) X-Spam-Summary: 1,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,jonathan.cameron@huawei.com,,RULES_HIT:30001:30012:30016:30054,0,RBL:45.249.212.32:@huawei.com:.lbl8.mailshell.net-64.95.201.95 62.18.2.100;04yf98t56qm6kpigjfoxh7xt3ywazycw7hu77ypiddarnqmnjd6ue1uoxd3gft5.5omnb3wfygio6mgwc9kdt81bq8ri9uh5h4obhbywih74mx1eebkieu96tbm7suh.h-lbl8.mailshell.net-223.238.255.100,CacheIP:none,Bayesian:0.5,0.5,0.5,Netcheck:none,DomainCache:0,MSF:not bulk,SPF:fp,MSBL:0,DNSBL:neutral,Custom_rules:0:0:0,LFtime:24,LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: form38_160b2d1270cc X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 3139 Received: from huawei.com (szxga06-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.32]) by imf11.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 14:06:54 +0000 (UTC) Received: from DGGEMS406-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.58]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id EA383C92ADD5C0558545; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 22:06:46 +0800 (CST) Received: from lhrphicprd00229.huawei.com (10.123.41.22) by DGGEMS406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.206) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.487.0; Mon, 7 Sep 2020 22:06:39 +0800 From: Jonathan Cameron To: , , , , Lorenzo Pieralisi , , Ingo Molnar CC: Bjorn Helgaas , , Thomas Gleixner , , Dan Williams , Brice Goglin , "Sean V Kelley" , , "Hanjun Guo" , Jonathan Cameron Subject: [PATCH v10 4/6] ACPI: HMAT: Fix handling of changes from ACPI 6.2 to ACPI 6.3 Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 22:03:05 +0800 Message-ID: <20200907140307.571932-5-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.19.1 In-Reply-To: <20200907140307.571932-1-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> References: <20200907140307.571932-1-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [10.123.41.22] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 08D7E8001B0C X-Spamd-Result: default: False [0.00 / 100.00] X-Rspamd-Server: rspam01 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: 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 --- Changes for v10: * Reorder the checks so we confirm the version first before taking the ACPI_HMAT_MEMORY_PD_VALID into account. (Bjorn Helgaas) drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c b/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c index 2c32cfb72370..6a91a55229ae 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c @@ -424,7 +424,8 @@ 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 ((hmat_revision == 1 && p->flags & ACPI_HMAT_MEMORY_PD_VALID) || + hmat_revision > 1) { target = find_mem_target(p->memory_PD); if (!target) { pr_debug("HMAT: Memory Domain missing from SRAT\n");