| Message ID | 82f254a1-c765-0a87-f017-8c07c8ef07cd@boldcoder.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Patch: Make ACPI subsystem provide CEDT table | expand |
On Tue, Jan 25, 2022 at 7:30 AM Robert Kiraly <me@boldcoder.com> wrote: > > This is a simple ACPI patch. I'm submitting a revised version to > linux-acpi per Rafael Wysocki and linux-cxl per Dan Williams. > > The patch has been moved to the message body and a Signed-off-by tag has > been added. Thunderbird has added CRs so "patch -p1 -l" is needed. To > address other points: > > Q. Dan Williams said: Yes, although I don't see much incremental benefit > to developers publishing a root only raw table... So, not opposed to the > patch, but I want to direct you to the sysfs representation of the CEDT > and CFMWS in /sys/bus/cxl/devices... Platform firmware CXL details are > modeled as "CXL root" objects in the /sys/bus/cxl device model. > > A. The patch is being submitted in connection with work on a CXL bridge. > The developers would like to express appreciation for the "sysfs" point. > They find it useful to be able to do initialization through the table > but will look at the "sysfs" approach. > > Q. Rafael J. Wysocki said: I'm not sure why the #ifdef is needed. > > A. I reviewed cxl-next and decided to add the #ifdef to ensure that the > code would compile regardless of the direction that the codebase takes. ACPI_SIG_CEDT is defined in 5.17-rc1 AFAICS, so the #ifdef is redundant. > ==== start of patch ==== > Subject: Make ACPI subsystem provide CEDT table > Signed-off-by: Robert Kiraly <me@boldcoder.com> > > This is a simple patch to the ACPI subsystem. The patch adds ACPI > _SIG_CEDT to table_sigs[] in "drivers/acpi/tables.c". > > Presently, CXL code isn't able to make use of the CEDT table at > the initrd stage. Subsequent to the change, the CEDT table can be > used. > > If a developer plans to use the CEDT table to program the CXL > ports, this change is needed. Otherwise, it isn't expected to > make a difference. > > I certify compliance with Developer’s Certificate of Origin 1.1 > as listed in: > https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.10/process/submitting-patches. > html > > --- linux-5.16.old/drivers/acpi/tables.c > +++ linux-5.16/drivers/acpi/tables.c > @@ -500,6 +500,9 @@ > ACPI_SIG_WDDT, ACPI_SIG_WDRT, ACPI_SIG_DSDT, ACPI_SIG_FADT, > ACPI_SIG_PSDT, ACPI_SIG_RSDT, ACPI_SIG_XSDT, ACPI_SIG_SSDT, > ACPI_SIG_IORT, ACPI_SIG_NFIT, ACPI_SIG_HMAT, ACPI_SIG_PPTT, > +#ifdef ACPI_SIG_CEDT > + ACPI_SIG_CEDT, > +#endif > ACPI_SIG_NHLT }; > > #define ACPI_HEADER_SIZE sizeof(struct acpi_table_header) > ==== end of patch ==== > >
On 01/25/2022 06:49AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > ACPI_SIG_CEDT is defined in 5.17-rc1 AFAICS, so the #ifdef is redundant. Noted. Thank you. Should I resubmit without the #ifdef or if the patch is accepted can it be removed by upstream?
On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 4:12 AM Robert Kiraly <me@boldcoder.com> wrote: > > On 01/25/2022 06:49AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > ACPI_SIG_CEDT is defined in 5.17-rc1 AFAICS, so the #ifdef is redundant. > > Noted. Thank you. Should I resubmit without the #ifdef or if the patch > is accepted can it be removed by upstream? Please resubmit it without the #ifdef.
--- linux-5.16.old/drivers/acpi/tables.c +++ linux-5.16/drivers/acpi/tables.c @@ -500,6 +500,9 @@ ACPI_SIG_WDDT, ACPI_SIG_WDRT, ACPI_SIG_DSDT, ACPI_SIG_FADT, ACPI_SIG_PSDT, ACPI_SIG_RSDT, ACPI_SIG_XSDT, ACPI_SIG_SSDT, ACPI_SIG_IORT, ACPI_SIG_NFIT, ACPI_SIG_HMAT, ACPI_SIG_PPTT, +#ifdef ACPI_SIG_CEDT + ACPI_SIG_CEDT, +#endif ACPI_SIG_NHLT }; #define ACPI_HEADER_SIZE sizeof(struct acpi_table_header)
This is a simple ACPI patch. I'm submitting a revised version to linux-acpi per Rafael Wysocki and linux-cxl per Dan Williams. The patch has been moved to the message body and a Signed-off-by tag has been added. Thunderbird has added CRs so "patch -p1 -l" is needed. To address other points: Q. Dan Williams said: Yes, although I don't see much incremental benefit to developers publishing a root only raw table... So, not opposed to the patch, but I want to direct you to the sysfs representation of the CEDT and CFMWS in /sys/bus/cxl/devices... Platform firmware CXL details are modeled as "CXL root" objects in the /sys/bus/cxl device model. A. The patch is being submitted in connection with work on a CXL bridge. The developers would like to express appreciation for the "sysfs" point. They find it useful to be able to do initialization through the table but will look at the "sysfs" approach. Q. Rafael J. Wysocki said: I'm not sure why the #ifdef is needed. A. I reviewed cxl-next and decided to add the #ifdef to ensure that the code would compile regardless of the direction that the codebase takes. ==== start of patch ==== Subject: Make ACPI subsystem provide CEDT table Signed-off-by: Robert Kiraly <me@boldcoder.com> This is a simple patch to the ACPI subsystem. The patch adds ACPI _SIG_CEDT to table_sigs[] in "drivers/acpi/tables.c". Presently, CXL code isn't able to make use of the CEDT table at the initrd stage. Subsequent to the change, the CEDT table can be used. If a developer plans to use the CEDT table to program the CXL ports, this change is needed. Otherwise, it isn't expected to make a difference. I certify compliance with Developer’s Certificate of Origin 1.1 as listed in: https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/v4.10/process/submitting-patches. html ==== end of patch ====