[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v3] acpi/processor: fix evaluating _PDC method when running as Xen dom0
- To: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2023 12:15:08 +0100
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=suse.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=suse.com; dkim=pass header.d=suse.com; arc=none
- Arc-message-signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=microsoft.com; s=arcselector9901; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-ChunkCount:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-0:X-MS-Exchange-AntiSpam-MessageData-1; bh=gWQuCSOqv/yYN+qmb4yfaY/Qpev2g4VbIfywb8iehhI=; b=F7018GhLJvaUzidvMPj5oCU3HW9RJjqRSZSYO5O6dlp/Pi1Giwaiif8BKkwcDAFq/2ELPZ8wt8Xnz4ZkK41KuwgbdturVQRUlNolrAo3nqg9pRFgm9x1ougxpwUk8/nAPWKA15p2OxHyPS/leuQSedn4PUvT1e1sVwWkz5ufStbLWawMwGsx0DvSIEaOVXn4f13Ku0oTnao9oG7A9JVu9HWwSX+Tvh0OY2AYNjCqGdqF5ucaxkujjMePP9P80ibEBZYijhlx7Q8cLJAsvt6x3giZEzyjTTSQcYgLrQuCgW1NHfq+yyhlGvh4/LIFSLUCS9oR1VPkN1iqJPxPGldYtQ==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=KfVDLA2PT+J0b2dCPu04rLc+UFY+VRsbUfwbbdhoemy9+35ZpUem3bACIQYn6wtLQWxrZd35DSBubLKfCLer+BkbCpiVRM3ZTbZgqTKnKZ+rAoDCOJze/kL0KOKQc8iL2D7oZ0Zh3j1QCW+YlvKPlAprBNpcW1NWW6XRpVQeobMb6viZ89s1myUOPQX6McPoE4cVZZXOXTKzw50W8aChAbllQfAmy7u0/wnlQstrldo7q+kv0z8kE3PCUTpTiSXUiFQ/QABjnqb47neizL6yeqX8k7pW3u7zknzWOt/mW8qBij6uwb1L1tS5TNkHc26m1WWG0mGH6KHBi3u/9s0tzg==
- Authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=suse.com;
- Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, josef@xxxxxxxxxxx, Juergen Gross <jgross@xxxxxxxx>, Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxxxxx>, Borislav Petkov <bp@xxxxxxxxx>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, x86@xxxxxxxxxx, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@xxxxxxxxx>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx>, Len Brown <lenb@xxxxxxxxxx>, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>, Oleksandr Tyshchenko <oleksandr_tyshchenko@xxxxxxxx>, Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@xxxxxxxxx>, Alex Chiang <achiang@xxxxxx>, linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Thu, 16 Mar 2023 11:15:19 +0000
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On 16.03.2023 12:00, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 11:45:47AM +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 16.03.2023 11:32, Roger Pau Monne wrote:
>>> --- a/arch/x86/include/asm/xen/hypervisor.h
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/xen/hypervisor.h
>>> @@ -63,4 +63,14 @@ void __init xen_pvh_init(struct boot_params
>>> *boot_params);
>>> void __init mem_map_via_hcall(struct boot_params *boot_params_p);
>>> #endif
>>>
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_XEN_DOM0
>>
>> Shouldn't you also check CONFIG_X86 here, seeing the condition for when
>> pcpu.c would be built?
>
> It's in a x86 specific header, so that's enough I think? (note the
> path of the header)
Oh, of course I should have paid attention - I'm sorry. (Then again it's
not really logical to live in an arch-dependent header, as the same would
be needed elsewhere with ACPI.)
>> Additionally CONFIG_ACPI may want checking, which
>> - taken together - would amount to checking CONFIG_XEN_ACPI. (For which
>> in turn I find odd that it will also be engaged when !DOM0.)
>
> Hm, is it worth making the acpi_id field in struct pcpu or helper
> conditional to CONFIG_ACPI? It's just data fetched from Xen so it
> doesn't depend on any of the ACPI functionality in Linux.
>
> IMO I don't think it's worth the extra ifdefs.
I didn't mean to suggest #ifdef for the new struct field. But the helper
is of no use without ACPI.
Jan
|
