Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-83109-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <6021126.lOV4Wx5bFT@kreacher> <3283809.44csPzL39Z@kreacher> <20240227092844.00006d49@Huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240227092844.00006d49@Huawei.com>
From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2024 12:13:50 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0jCPO9H-dCdew7LoUwg__wFwY60HYphxEgN_-=0Pe87Hg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] ACPI: scan: Make acpi_processor_add() check the
 device enabled bit
To: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>, 
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, 
	Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@linux.intel.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>, 
	"Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>, kangkang.shen@futurewei.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 10:28=E2=80=AFAM Jonathan Cameron
<Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 26 Feb 2024 17:40:52 +0100
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net> wrote:
>
> > From: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> >
> > Modify acpi_processor_add() return an error if _STA returns the enabled
> > bit clear for the given processor device, so as to avoid using processo=
rs
> > that don't decode their resources, as per the ACPI specification. [1]
> >
> > Link: https://uefi.org/specs/ACPI/6.5/06_Device_Configuration.html#sta-=
device-status # [1]
> > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
>
> Sorry for lack of reply on discussion.

No worries.

> Your follow up mails never reached my inbox for some reason

/me blames spam filters somewhere.

> so I just caught up on lore. I'll keep an eye on
> the archives to make sure I don't miss further discussion.

Thanks!

> Agreed that functional isn't relevant here so this patch is correct.
> Also agree that it would be nice to clarify the spec as you mentioned
> to say that bit 1 is reserved if bit 0 of _STA result is clear.
> Depending on interpretation it's either a clarification or a relaxation
> of current statements, so should be uncontroversial (famous last words ;)

Right.

> +CC kangkang so this is on his radar as an ACPI cleanup suggestion.
> For his reference, discussion is here:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-acpi/CAJZ5v0jjD=3DKN0pOuWZZ8DT5yHdu03KgOSHY=
e3wB7h2vafNa44w@mail.gmail.com/
>
> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>

Thanks for all of the reviews!