Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <158318759687.2216124.4684754859068906007.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <158318762012.2216124.16408566404290491508.stgit@dwillia2-desk3.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <1848cdb9-8c19-d7fe-870c-175bd60bc364@amd.com>
In-Reply-To: <1848cdb9-8c19-d7fe-870c-175bd60bc364@amd.com>
From:   Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Date:   Tue, 17 Mar 2020 15:04:48 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4goRP8EAfMX8oOANgzgm3Pn=wES42MCDXbP_x__-GW52g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] resource: Report parent to walk_iomem_res_desc() callback
To:     Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>
Cc:     Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Wei Yang <richardw.yang@linux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 6:42 AM Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com> wrote:
>
> On 3/2/20 4:20 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> > In support of detecting whether a resource might have been been claimed,
> > report the parent to the walk_iomem_res_desc() callback. For example,
> > the ACPI HMAT parser publishes "hmem" platform devices per target range.
> > However, if the HMAT is disabled / missing a fallback driver can attach
> > devices to the raw memory ranges as a fallback if it sees unclaimed /
> > orphan "Soft Reserved" resources in the resource tree.
> >
> > Otherwise, find_next_iomem_res() returns a resource with garbage data
> > from the stack allocation in __walk_iomem_res_desc() for the res->parent
> > field.
>
> Just wondering if we shouldn't just copy the complete resource struct and
> just override the start and end values? That way, if some code in the
> future wants to look at sibling or child values, another change isn't needed.
>
> Just a thought.

Thanks for taking a look. I think it's ok to come update this again if
that need arises.