On Tue, Sep 14, 2021 at 11:51 PM Justin He <justin...@arm.com> wrote:
[..]
> > > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c b/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c
> > > index fb775b967c52..d3a0cec635b1 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c
> > > @@ -3005,15 +3005,8 @@ static int acpi_nfit_register_region(struct
> > > acpi_nfit_desc *acpi_desc,
> > > ndr_desc->res = &res;
> > > ndr_desc->provider_data = nfit_spa;
> > > ndr_desc->attr_groups = acpi_nfit_region_attribute_groups;
> > > - if (spa->flags & ACPI_NFIT_PROXIMITY_VALID) {
> > > - ndr_desc->numa_node = acpi_map_pxm_to_online_node(
> > > - spa->proximity_domain);
> > > - ndr_desc->target_node = acpi_map_pxm_to_node(
> > > - spa->proximity_domain);
> > > - } else {
> > > - ndr_desc->numa_node = NUMA_NO_NODE;
> > > - ndr_desc->target_node = NUMA_NO_NODE;
> > > - }
> > > + ndr_desc->numa_node = memory_add_physaddr_to_nid(spa->address);
> > > + ndr_desc->target_node = phys_to_target_node(spa->address);
> > >
> > > /*
> > > * Persistence domain bits are hierarchical, if
> > > ===================================================
> > >
> > > Do you still suggest fixing like this?
> >
> > Are you saying that ACPI_NFIT_PROXIMITY_VALID is not set on your
> > platform, or that pxm_to_node() returns NUMA_NO_NODE?
> >
> Latter, ACPI_NFIT_PROXIMITY_VALID is *set* in my case.
>
> > I would expect something like this:
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c b/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c
> > index a3ef6cce644c..95de7dc18ed8 100644
> > --- a/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c
> > +++ b/drivers/acpi/nfit/core.c
> > @@ -3007,6 +3007,15 @@ static int acpi_nfit_register_region(struct
> > acpi_nfit_desc *acpi_desc,
> > ndr_desc->target_node = NUMA_NO_NODE;
> > }
> >
> > + /*
> > + * Fallback to address based numa information if node lookup
> > + * failed
> > + */
> > + if (ndr_desc->numa_node == NUMA_NO_NODE)
> > + ndr_desc->numa_node = memory_add_physaddr_to_nid(spa-
> > >address);
> > + if (ndr_desc->target_node == NUMA_NO_NODE)
> > + phys_to_target_node(spa->address);
> > +
>
> Would it better to add a dev_info() here to report this node id changing?
Yes, given all the possibilities here, a dev_info() reporting the
final result of the node mapping is justifiable.
