Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-150546-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2024 12:10:11 -0500
From: Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@kernel.org>
To: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>
Cc: linux-pci@vger.kernel.org, Mateusz Kaduk <mateusz.kaduk@gmail.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, Tj <linux@iam.tj>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>,
	Hans de Goede <hdegoede@redhat.com>, x86@kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>,
	stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] x86/pci: Skip early E820 check for ECAM region
Message-ID: <20240418171011.GA243400@bhelgaas>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <11f55f7e-92f9-4689-9dd8-75fb45f8afe5@linux.intel.com>

On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 08:10:28PM -0700, Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan wrote:
> 
> On 4/17/24 1:40 PM, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> > From: Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@google.com>
> >
> > Arul, Mateusz, Imcarneiro91, and Aman reported a regression caused by
> > 07eab0901ede ("efi/x86: Remove EfiMemoryMappedIO from E820 map").  On the
> > Lenovo Legion 9i laptop, that commit removes the area containing ECAM from
> > E820, which means the early E820 validation started failing, which meant we
> > didn't enable ECAM in the "early MCFG" path
> ...

> LGTM
> 
> Reviewed-by: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <sathyanarayanan.kuppuswamy@linux.intel.com>

Thanks for taking a look!

> > -	if (!early && !acpi_disabled) {
> > +	if (early) {
> > +
> > +		/*
> > +		 * Don't try to do this check unless configuration type 1
> > +		 * is available.  How about type 2?
> 
> I don't understand why above question is included in the comment. Do
> you think it is better to drop that part of the comment?

The "How about type 2?" questio was added by bb63b4219976 ("x86 pci:
remove checking type for mmconfig probe").  I only moved it and fixed
the capitalization and formatting.

> > -	/* Don't try to do this check unless configuration
> > -	   type 1 is available. how about type 2 ?*/
> > -	if (raw_pci_ops)
> > -		return is_mmconf_reserved(e820__mapped_all, cfg, dev,
> > -					  "E820 entry");
> > -
> >  	return false;
> >  }