[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH 1/3] acpi/processor: fix evaluating _PDC method when running as Xen dom0
- To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxx>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx>
- From: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2022 17:37:12 +0100
- Arc-authentication-results: i=1; mx.microsoft.com 1; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=citrix.com; dmarc=pass action=none header.from=citrix.com; dkim=pass header.d=citrix.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=K8EMr9olxyvoIiovWcoqyTykRTu2mwAaFzeBdbGQj2c=; b=feOkvfP+qMRtPQJKa2tjT3w7RXNVC/suWkioQI/AfIx+Y5wW40mlG1wDCWzhymbYHopQP1HirohchJ5V61xcfFyOdw8CPop6WbIWKswYbnk4m799nMDxiHmuvdPsYzMyly4Ode6jl+X1xM0ndu9d6SxhOR/Ps/UWT/ogbrM0zg0tGSyM9x6Lel98GkCvOsH/ZsWIsmDfy8KLxlYwI4Nz0anq4YndG2LV1wgO2VkSUVZcaO3e44oLzGpNYqMHW0GoSRN8mxMPRVxpdwPGDlzz8McLsMHMf6Z0WgON9CQPp9f/lUWSSGzlCZELnIFqQvaFXxq+kRUZoQ4CVg1pmnzDcA==
- Arc-seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; s=arcselector9901; d=microsoft.com; cv=none; b=caS2SCo011j4JJK1VzRXMYcNXzdHExjbGK4N/B9lIowboI4M8BpGc7CSmIduRQr7tFUPcW41ugZ2UICqVmSWdU4XGex+eZy2Y/XlbVkrdIZWRiAVu6JXBIxfcosJIIFy5s8Grw0m3ah6xAQmAtIVWNVgGS/FiROz0Pk/jl4EW+AdP47UefxKlyOE5+FQUOrSowhYxVa9aw+6RbET9ccZ9n+P2soszKs9YS3Ii87Er7rF3c0Zsv+tGEn2q0oqaBlUKkfZKkOIkyLdRr82ceHWbctM1zPkEmseMDc2nDMltVEi21O9NuIlEy85PCoIR0F3zljKZgGElOCl2bs+liIbWw==
- Authentication-results: dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;dmarc=none action=none header.from=citrix.com;
- Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, 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>, Len Brown <lenb@xxxxxxxxxx>, Alex Chiang <achiang@xxxxxx>, Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@xxxxxxxxx>, linux-acpi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Delivery-date: Fri, 02 Dec 2022 16:37:38 +0000
- Ironport-data: A9a23:v32OU6tvkjBbHq58ww6l0xuoS+fnVJdeMUV32f8akzHdYApBsoF/q tZmKTrXb/uDYjPzKN4gOoq0/EME6J6EzNFkTABk/HwzEyob+JbJXdiXEBz9bniYRiHhoOCLz O1FM4Wdc5pkJpP4jk3wWlQ0hSAkjclkfpKlVKiffHg0HVU/IMsYoUoLs/YjhYJ1isSODQqIu Nfjy+XSI1bg0DNvWo4uw/vrRChH4bKj5lv0gnRkPaoR5QWGzSFPZH4iDfrZw0XQE9E88tGSH 44v/JnhlkvF8hEkDM+Sk7qTWiXmlZaLYGBiIlIPM0STqkAqSh4ai87XB9JFAatjsB2bnsgZ9 Tl4ncfYpTHFnEH7sL91vxFwS0mSNEDdkVPNCSDXXce7lyUqf5ZwqhnH4Y5f0YAwo45K7W9yG fMwLiwmMUuAif2Kz+i1aNNznpkzN8KyFdZK0p1g5Wmx4fcOZ7nmGv2Pz/kHmTA6i4ZJAOrUY NcfZXx3dhPcbhZTO1ARTpUjgOOvgXq5eDpdwL6XjfNvvy6Pk0ouiP60aIC9lt+iHK25mm6Co W3L5SLhCwwyP92D0zuVtHmrg4cjmAurBtlKROLnqpaGhnXJxnUrWFpMUGCSgtK2km3lY/h6J 0sLr39GQa8asRbDosPGdxGxvnPCvhcaQNdWO+w89AyJjKHT5m6xHGEKRzNFQN8rrsk7QXotz FDht9foAyF/9b6YU3SQ8p+Koj6ofysYN2kPYWkDVwRty8nupsQ/gwzCSv5nEbWplZvlFDfo2 TeIoSMiwbIJgqYj1aqh+kvcqymxvZWPRQkwji3dWXik9UV+f5K/YJKz6knz6uxJJ4KUCFKGu RAsh8ea/MgKDJeQiDaKRuQdWr2kj96AMTvThnZ1EpUh/ijr8HmmFaha+Bl3IEZkNJZCdTKBS EPapw4X5JZVJ3asRat2ZZ+hTcUs0aXkU9/iU5j8fooQSpt8bgmK+Gdpf0H492D1mWA+gL04I 9GQdsPEJXIXD65PzzesQeoZl7gxyUgWzGjTRJn9wDynyfyVY3v9YakINliHcu0i7OWcqQHR8 s5WO8qiyhNDXem4aS7SmaYXLFYXPT0yDoj3g9JYe/TFIQd8HmwlTfjLztscl5dNmq1UkqLC+ C67U0oBkF7n3ySfc0ONd2xpb67pUdBnt3UnMCcwPFGunX8+fYKo66RZfJwyFVU6yNFeITdPZ 6FtU6297j5nEFwrJxx1gUHBkbFf
- Ironport-hdrordr: A9a23:Vw+RC6GscJThW+VRpLqE+ceALOsnbusQ8zAXPiFKOH9om6mj/K qTdZsguCMc9wxhOk3I9ertBEDiexPhHPxOj7X5VI3KNDUO01HIEGgN1+TfKjTbakjDytI=
- List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org>
On Fri, Dec 02, 2022 at 08:17:56AM -0800, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 12/2/22 04:24, Roger Pau Monné wrote:
> > On the implementation side, is the proposed approach acceptable?
> > Mostly asking because it adds Xen conditionals to otherwise generic
> > ACPI code.
>
> That's a good Rafael question.
>
> But, how do other places in the ACPI code handle things like this?
Hm, I don't know of other places in the Xen case, the only resource
in ACPI AML tables managed by Xen are Processor objects/devices AFAIK.
The rest of devices are fully managed by the dom0 guest.
I think such special handling is very specific to Xen, but maybe I'm
wrong and there are similar existing cases in ACPI code already.
We could add some kind of hook (iow: a function pointer in some struct
that could be filled on a implementation basis?) but I didn't want
overengineering this if adding a conditional was deemed OK.
Thanks, Roger.
|
