Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] PCI: Warn about host bridge device when its numa node is NO_NODE | From | Robin Murphy <> | Date | Tue, 22 Oct 2019 14:55:35 +0100 |
| |
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.
| |