Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] ACPI/IORT: Remove erroneous id_count check in
 iort_node_get_rmr_info()
From:   Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>
To:     Shameerali Kolothum Thodi <shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com>,
        Lorenzo Pieralisi <lpieralisi@kernel.org>,
        Guanghui Feng <guanghuifeng@linux.alibaba.com>
CC:     "sudeep.holla@arm.com" <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
        "rafael@kernel.org" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        "linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
        <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com" <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>,
        "alikernel-developer@linux.alibaba.com" 
        <alikernel-developer@linux.alibaba.com>,
        "will@kernel.org" <will@kernel.org>,
        "catalin.marinas@arm.com" <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
References: <1689593625-45213-1-git-send-email-guanghuifeng@linux.alibaba.com>
 <ZLZEq0QBBW4rcxJM@lpieralisi> <597f481b0e5149dabe4821ca618af6b3@huawei.com>
 <613da2c3-d515-b49c-4ff3-cf94836b2acf@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <7689b8a7-105c-d8a4-4ba0-10aafdfd75e8@huawei.com>
Date:   Wed, 26 Jul 2023 17:07:30 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <613da2c3-d515-b49c-4ff3-cf94836b2acf@huawei.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2023/7/19 17:13, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> On 2023/7/18 16:56, Shameerali Kolothum Thodi wrote:
>>> [+Catalin, Will, Shameer]
[...]
>>> Shameer, I know this may look like overkill since the hunk we are
>>> removing is buggy but can you please test this patch on platforms
>>> with RMR to make sure we are not triggering regressions by removing
>>> it (by the specs that's what should be done but current firmware
>>> is always something to reckon with) ?
>> Yes, that is a valid fix. Unlikely it will be a problem. Anyway, I 
>> have requested
>> Hanjun to help with the testing as I don't have a test setup with me now.
> 
> Valid fix for me as well, we had a firmware bug which reported the
> numbers of ID as 1 when we only have one ID mapping, so remove the
> check is fine for the old firmware, but to make it sure, we need some
> test before give it a pass.
> 
>>
>> Hanjun, please help.
> 
> I need some time to get it properly tested on two versions of firmware,
> and get the test machine properly setup, please allow me give the
> feedback next week.

No regressions were found,

Tested-by: Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>

Thanks
Hanjun