On 1/9/24 16:47, Jeshua Smith wrote:
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.
Is it possible to elaborate on the resource being shared ?
Does it fall into the subject of this thread ? Some resources might be aswell
described in other ACPI tables.
https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/89121
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.
This check is only present in the DynamicTablesPkg, so it shouldn't be too
restrictive.
If the platform is known to use it, is it possible to share which platform it
is ?
Regards,
Pierre
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#113456): https://edk2.groups.io/g/devel/message/113456
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]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
