Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:1;
Date:   Fri, 20 Oct 2023 13:42:34 +0300
From:   "kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
To:     "Huang, Kai" <kai.huang@intel.com>
Cc:     "tglx@linutronix.de" <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "mingo@redhat.com" <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "x86@kernel.org" <x86@kernel.org>, "bp@alien8.de" <bp@alien8.de>,
        "dave.hansen@linux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@intel.com>,
        "Reshetova, Elena" <elena.reshetova@intel.com>,
        "Nakajima, Jun" <jun.nakajima@intel.com>,
        "rafael@kernel.org" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        "peterz@infradead.org" <peterz@infradead.org>,
        "sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com" 
        <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>,
        "Hunter, Adrian" <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
        "thomas.lendacky@amd.com" <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "kexec@lists.infradead.org" <kexec@lists.infradead.org>,
        "linux-coco@lists.linux.dev" <linux-coco@lists.linux.dev>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/13] x86/acpi: Add support for CPU offlining for ACPI
 MADT wakeup method
Message-ID: <20231020104234.s2qqfssultevcnlr@box.shutemov.name>
References: <20231005131402.14611-1-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <20231005131402.14611-14-kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
 <f0317ec1f52b96c76d8feeb3f21c16dec1de81c8.camel@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <f0317ec1f52b96c76d8feeb3f21c16dec1de81c8.camel@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Oct 20, 2023 at 09:49:59AM +0000, Huang, Kai wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-10-05 at 16:14 +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > ?struct acpi_madt_multiproc_wakeup {
> > ?	struct acpi_subtable_header header;
> > -	u16 mailbox_version;
> > +	u16 version;
> > ?	u32 reserved;		/* reserved - must be zero */
> > -	u64 base_address;
> > +	u64 mailbox_address;
> > +	u64 reset_vector;
> > ?};
> 
> I don't quite understand the connection between the renaming and what this patch
> wants to achieve?  What's the reason to rename?

Names are bad: the version field guides version of the structure, not
version of the mailbox. And it is not clear what base base_address
specifies.

> If needed, perhaps put into a separate patch with proper justification?

Hm. Okay...

-- 
  Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov