On 02/19/24 at 12:08pm, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 12:45:31PM +0800, Baoquan He wrote: > > Do we need add the entry printing for ACPI_MADT_TYPE_MULTIPROC_WAKEUP > > now in acpi_table_print_madt_entry()? Surely it's not related to this > > patch. > > Good catch. See patch below. Does it look okay?
Looks good to me, thanks. Reviewed-by: Baoquan He <[email protected]> > > > FWIW, > > > > Reviewed-by: Baoquan He <[email protected]> > > Thanks! > > From 23b7f9856a3d6b91c702def1e03872a60ae07d0e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <[email protected]> > Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 11:58:19 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH] ACPI: tables: Print MULTIPROC_WAKEUP when MADT is parse > > When MADT is parsed, print MULTIPROC_WAKEUP information: > > ACPI: MP Wakeup (version[1], mailbox[0x7fffd000], reset[0x7fffe068]) > > This debug information will be very helpful during bring up. > > Signed-off-by: Kirill A. Shutemov <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/acpi/tables.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/tables.c b/drivers/acpi/tables.c > index b07f7d091d13..c59a3617bca7 100644 > --- a/drivers/acpi/tables.c > +++ b/drivers/acpi/tables.c > @@ -198,6 +198,20 @@ void acpi_table_print_madt_entry(struct > acpi_subtable_header *header) > } > break; > > + case ACPI_MADT_TYPE_MULTIPROC_WAKEUP: > + { > + struct acpi_madt_multiproc_wakeup *p = > + (struct acpi_madt_multiproc_wakeup *)header; > + u64 reset_vector = 0; > + > + if (p->version >= ACPI_MADT_MP_WAKEUP_VERSION_V1) > + reset_vector = p->reset_vector; > + > + pr_debug("MP Wakeup (version[%d], mailbox[%#llx], > reset[%#llx])\n", > + p->version, p->mailbox_address, reset_vector); > + } > + break; > + > case ACPI_MADT_TYPE_CORE_PIC: > { > struct acpi_madt_core_pic *p = (struct > acpi_madt_core_pic *)header; > -- > 2.43.0 > > -- > Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov > _______________________________________________ kexec mailing list [email protected] http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/kexec
