lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Oct]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] PCI: Warn about host bridge device when its numa node is NO_NODE
From
Date
On 21/10/2019 05:05, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
> On 2019/10/19 16:34, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 02:45:43PM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote:
>>> + if (nr_node_ids > 1 && dev_to_node(bus->bridge) == NUMA_NO_NODE)
>>> + dev_err(bus->bridge, FW_BUG "No node assigned on NUMA capable HW by BIOS. Please contact your vendor for updates.\n");
>>> +
>>
>> The whole idea of mentioning a BIOS in architeture indepent code doesn't
>> make sense at all.

[ Come to think of it, I'm sure an increasing number of x86 firmwares
don't even implement a PC BIOS any more... ]

In all fairness, the server-class Arm-based machines I've come across so
far do seem to consistently call their EFI firmware images "BIOS"
despite the clear anachronism. At least the absurdity of conflating a
system setup program with a semiconductor process seems to have mostly
died out ;)

> Mentioning the BIOS is to tell user what firmware is broken, so that
> user can report this to their vendor by referring the specific firmware.
>
> It seems we can specific the node through different ways(DT, ACPI, etc).
>
> Is there a better name for mentioning instead of BIOS, or we should do
> the checking and warning in the architeture dependent code?
>
> Or maybe just remove the BIOS from the above log?

Even though there may be some degree of historical convention hanging
around on ACPI-based systems, that argument almost certainly doesn't
hold for OF/FDT/etc. - the "[Firmware Bug]:" prefix is hopefully
indicative enough, so I'd say just drop the "by BIOS" part.

Robin.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-10-22 15:56    [W:0.073 / U:0.504 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site