From patchwork Mon Dec 16 15:38:07 2019 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Patchwork-Submitter: Jonathan Cameron X-Patchwork-Id: 11294413 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 5BEB1112B for ; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 15:39:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 323E820717 for ; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 15:39:24 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 323E820717 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 544658E000A; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 10:39:23 -0500 (EST) Delivered-To: linux-mm-outgoing@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 51AA88E0005; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 10:39:23 -0500 (EST) 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 431198E000A; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 10:39:23 -0500 (EST) X-Original-To: linux-mm@kvack.org X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0109.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.109]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 290BF8E0005 for ; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 10:39:23 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin21.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay04.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E71B62C79 for ; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 15:39:22 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 76271413764.21.river37_6ef5b8e6d3b0c X-Spam-Summary: 1,0,0,,d41d8cd98f00b204,jonathan.cameron@huawei.com,::linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org:linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org:linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org:x86@kernel.org:keith.busch@intel.com:jglisse@redhat.com:rjw@rjwysocki.net:linuxarm@huawei.com:akpm@linux-foundation.org:dan.j.williams@intel.com:tao3.xu@intel.com:brice.goglin@gmail.com:lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com:guohanjun@huawei.com:sudeep.holla@arm.com:jonathan.cameron@huawei.com,RULES_HIT:30012:30054,0,RBL:45.249.212.35:@huawei.com:.lbl8.mailshell.net-62.18.2.100 64.95.201.95,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:1,LUA_SUMMARY:none X-HE-Tag: river37_6ef5b8e6d3b0c X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 2977 Received: from huawei.com (szxga07-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.35]) by imf25.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 15:39:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from DGGEMS405-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.58]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 8A993EC629902585DC1E; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 23:39:18 +0800 (CST) Received: from lhrphicprd00229.huawei.com (10.123.41.22) by DGGEMS405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.205) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.439.0; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 23:39:09 +0800 From: Jonathan Cameron To: , , , , CC: Keith Busch , , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , , Andrew Morton , Dan Williams , Tao Xu , Brice Goglin , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Hanjun Guo , Sudeep Holla , Jonathan Cameron Subject: [PATCH V6 5/7] ACPI: HMAT: Fix handling of changes from ACPI 6.2 to ACPI 6.3 Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 23:38:07 +0800 Message-ID: <20191216153809.105463-6-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.19.1 In-Reply-To: <20191216153809.105463-1-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> References: <20191216153809.105463-1-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Originating-IP: [10.123.41.22] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected 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 --- drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c b/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c index 2c32cfb72370..07cfe50136e0 100644 --- a/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c +++ b/drivers/acpi/numa/hmat.c @@ -424,7 +424,7 @@ 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 ((p->flags & ACPI_HMAT_MEMORY_PD_VALID && hmat_revision == 1) || hmat_revision == 2) { target = find_mem_target(p->memory_PD); if (!target) { pr_debug("HMAT: Memory Domain missing from SRAT\n");