> From: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gond...@arm.com> > Sent: Tuesday, January 9, 2024 1:22 AM
> On 1/8/24 19:12, Jeshua Smith wrote: > > The code was incorrectly assuming that root nodes had to be physical > > package nodes and vice versa. This is not always true, so the check is > > being removed. > > Does it mean that you have a topology where the top-level node is not a > physical package ? If yes, does it also mean that multiple physical packages > share a resource (which belong to the top-level node) ? Yes, this change is due to the check incorrectly flagging our topology as invalid. Simply removing the check fixed the problem for us. > It is correct that the check is a bit stronger than what the specification > states, > but it was handling all topologies so far, so would it be possible to > describe the > topology that you have ? Two physical packages are on a multi-chip module and share resources on the module. The module then plugs into the baseboard/motherboard. Note: While investigating this we noticed that another vendor also has a similar PPTT topology to what is being flagged as invalid, so either that vendor isn't using EDK2 or they have done something to avoid this check without submitting a patch to EDK2. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#113455): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/113455 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/103603398/21656 Group Owner: devel+ow...@edk2.groups.io Unsubscribe: https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
