Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932260AbcCWQMB (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Mar 2016 12:12:01 -0400 Received: from relay1.sgi.com ([192.48.180.66]:45102 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752215AbcCWQMA (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Mar 2016 12:12:00 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 11:11:58 -0500 From: Alex Thorlton To: Thomas Gleixner Cc: Alex Thorlton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar , "H. Peter Anvin" , Hedi Berriche , x86@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Disable UV BAU by default Message-ID: <20160323161158.GC205791@stormcage.americas.sgi.com> References: <1458579852-37580-1-git-send-email-athorlton@sgi.com> <1458579852-37580-2-git-send-email-athorlton@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1371 Lines: 44 On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:27:44PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Mon, 21 Mar 2016, Alex Thorlton wrote: > > First of all, please use proper patch prefixes. > > x86/platform/uv: .... Ah - sorry about that! > And please fold the documentation change into the patch which changes the > parameter. Got it. No problem! > > + if (!strncmp(arg, "on", 2)) { > > + nobau = 0; > > + pr_info("UV BAU Enabled\n"); > > + } else if (!strncmp(arg, "off", 3)) { > > + nobau = 1; > > + pr_info("UV BAU Disabled\n"); > > + } > > What's the value of having that extra argument? > > The default is off, so we can do with a simple "bau" or "enable_bau" and be > done with it. This was actually what I initially wrote, but we decided to go with the on/off switch instead, because, in the UV4 time-frame, we're hoping to get a few things changed so that we can default to having the bau *on* for the new UV4 systems. I left that detail out of the original commit message, as I didn't figure our future (still tentative) plans were all that important to the community. I can add that information to my commit message, if you would prefer to see it there. I'll get the other stuff fixed up. Please let me know if you'd like for me to give a bit more detail in the commit message about the motivation for the on/off switch vs. an enable flag. Thanks for the input! - Alex