Hi Ingo,

On 07/08/16 at 02:27pm, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Baoquan He <b...@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > ACPI MADT has a 32-bit field providing lapic address at which
> > each processor can access its lapic information. MADT also contains
> > an optional entry to provide a 64-bit address to override the 32-bit
> > one. However the current code does the lapic address override entry
> > parsing twice. One is in early_acpi_boot_init() because AMD NUMA need
> > get boot_cpu_id earlier. The other is in acpi_boot_init() which parses
> > all MADT entries.
> > 
> > So in this patch remove the repeated code in the 2nd part. Meanwhile
> > print lapic override entry information like other MADT entry.
> 
> So this patch is not supposed to change behavior (modulo kernel messages), 
> right? 
> If so it would make sense to spell that out explicitly in the changelog.

I am not sure if I understand your question correctly. In this patch I
added the calling of acpi_table_print_madt_entry(header) in
acpi_parse_lapic_addr_ovr, it will print information related if a lapic
address override entry is provided as below:

        case ACPI_MADT_TYPE_LOCAL_APIC_OVERRIDE:                                
                                  
                {                                                               
                                  
                        struct acpi_madt_local_apic_override *p =               
                                  
                            (struct acpi_madt_local_apic_override*)header;      
                                 
                        pr_info("LAPIC_ADDR_OVR (address[%p])\n",               
                                  
                                (void *)(unsigned long)p->address);             
                                  
                }                                                               
                                  
                break;

This will add one line of message to boot log if lapic addr override
entry provided:
"LAPIC_ADDR_OVR (address[0xXXXXXXXX])"

I don't know if this is the behaviour change (modulo kernel messages)
you mentioned.

Thanks
Baoquan

Reply via email to