Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 707CCC433F5 for ; Tue, 7 Dec 2021 17:08:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S239844AbhLGRLb (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Dec 2021 12:11:31 -0500 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:29244 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235335AbhLGRLa (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Dec 2021 12:11:30 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098420.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 1B7FrHrj027785; Tue, 7 Dec 2021 17:07:55 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=from : to : cc : subject : in-reply-to : references : date : message-id : mime-version : content-type; s=pp1; bh=KV7oBdrURQGDIkQQgRY7Ef5rSkRnP4z8E1pnB7i6FNg=; b=J1j/s5girdbYsJ7K6XED6vEV5veo7zOI4Z4X+M1t5GWoz+aJJJz3juezq7GQww0g6pKz +WqEy59fXYK0gnlGX+NwrBZOJ7ZO2ruKb7+0/iIqxLOFvPkglpqUp8CHLy7P+3stFLg3 mPczk62fMabU1eBM5Oh70nSIHkO+Ns8SsaTu4EjKjl4MyiTia1T3JmIbXJm9GH9Pc5d+ 4+I50zqZGgHeiMM7Vj9+3MfZHBh+Ht365fGkZSrzkVj+KxtQuYw5r5Nz3th4vRlMMIjP iL01eS+GcEJt/LZandgeKjmncJoyjDhJwOdUM+OurpFN/DgqMdN9JO2Pw9uwdGEMw7O3 zA== Received: from ppma02wdc.us.ibm.com (aa.5b.37a9.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [169.55.91.170]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 3ctanb1q35-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 07 Dec 2021 17:07:55 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma02wdc.us.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma02wdc.us.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 1B7H7qxR030589; Tue, 7 Dec 2021 17:07:54 GMT Received: from b01cxnp23033.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01cxnp23033.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.198.28]) by ppma02wdc.us.ibm.com with ESMTP id 3cqyyagjd2-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 07 Dec 2021 17:07:54 +0000 Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com [9.57.199.108]) by b01cxnp23033.gho.pok.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 1B7H7rUn50921938 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 7 Dec 2021 17:07:53 GMT Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEDEDB2068; Tue, 7 Dec 2021 17:07:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 911C8B2070; Tue, 7 Dec 2021 17:07:51 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost (unknown [9.211.135.78]) by b01ledav003.gho.pok.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Tue, 7 Dec 2021 17:07:50 +0000 (GMT) From: Nathan Lynch To: Laurent Dufour Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] powerpc/pseries: read the lpar name from the firmware In-Reply-To: References: <20211203154321.13168-1-ldufour@linux.ibm.com> <87bl1so588.fsf@linux.ibm.com> Date: Tue, 07 Dec 2021 11:07:50 -0600 Message-ID: <878rwwny1l.fsf@linux.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: u4OqYHRlQ7DzTIQDdbgq-sLH52StFeJr X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: u4OqYHRlQ7DzTIQDdbgq-sLH52StFeJr X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.205,Aquarius:18.0.790,Hydra:6.0.425,FMLib:17.11.62.513 definitions=2021-12-07_06,2021-12-06_02,2021-12-02_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxscore=0 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 bulkscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 suspectscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 impostorscore=0 phishscore=0 malwarescore=0 priorityscore=1501 clxscore=1011 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2110150000 definitions=main-2112070106 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Laurent Dufour writes: > On 07/12/2021, 15:32:39, Nathan Lynch wrote: >> Is there a reasonable fallback for VMs where this parameter doesn't >> exist? PowerVM partitions should always have it, but what do we want the >> behavior to be on other hypervisors? > > In that case, there is no value displayed in the /proc/powerpc/lparcfg and > the lparstat -i command will fall back to the device tree value. I can't > see any valid reason to report the value defined in the device tree > here. Here's a valid reason :-) lparstat isn't the only possible consumer of the interface, and the 'ibm,partition-name' property and the dynamic system parameter clearly serve a common purpose. 'ibm,partition-name' is provided by qemu. In any case, the function should not print an error when the return value is -3 (parameter not supported).