Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] hw/arm/virt-acpi-build: patch guest SRAT for NUMA nodes
On Tue, 26 Sep 2023 14:54:36 + Ankit Agrawal wrote: > > With an ACPI spec clarification agreed then I'm fine with > > using this for all the cases that have come up in this thread. > > Or a good argument that this is valid in under existing ACPI spec. > > Hi Jonathan > > I looked at the Section 5.2.16 in ACPI spec doc, but could not see > any mention of whether size == 0 is invalid or be avoided. > https://uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/ACPI_6_3_final_Jan30.pdf > > If that is not convincing, do you have suggestions as to how I may > confirm this? > It's not so much whether 0 size is valid that concerns me (as you say it isn't ruled out, though given the explanatory text is is non sensical) but rather whether you are allowed to use such an entry to add memory that is not within the range later. To my reading the statement under "Memory Affinity Structure" suggests not. "The Memory Affinity structure provides the following topology information statically to the operating system: * The association between a _memory range_ and the proximity to which it belongs. * Information about whether the memory range can be hot-plugged. " That doesn't leave space for using it to define a proximity node without providing the range. With my 'occasional' contributor to ACPI spec hat on, (obviously there are people way more versed in this than me!) I'd suggest that ASWG will ask the obvious question of why does the ACPI table needs to describe a software entity that is entirely discoverable by other means? After all your driver is clearly going to pick up these nodes and assign them later - so it can just create them. ACPI spec doesn't care if Linux can do this or not :( There are some hacks in place in the kernel (or at least under review) to deal with a CXL case where there are BIOSes that assign part of the CXL Fixed Memory Window (a bit of host PA space) to an SRAT entry, but not the whole of it. However, I think those are a workaround for a bug (maybe not everyone agrees with that though). Perhaps I'm being overly hopeful for clarity and it is fine to do what you have here. Jonathan
Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] hw/arm/virt-acpi-build: patch guest SRAT for NUMA nodes
>> Ok. I'd failed to register that the bare metal code was doing this though >> with hindsight I guess that is obvious. Though without more info or >> a bare metal example being given its also possible the BIOS was doing >> enumeration etc (like CXL does for all < 2.0 devices) and hence was >> building SRAT with the necessary memory ranges in place - even if the >> driver then does the hot add dance later. > > Ankit, maybe you can share some relavent ACPI dumps from the physical > hardware and explain how this compares? Yeah, we are pretty much emulating the baremetal behavior here (I should have been clearer). The PXM domains 8-15 are the "device associated" NUMA nodes on the host. Here are the kernel logs from the baremetal system related to these NUMA nodes. [0.00] ACPI: SRAT: Node 1 PXM 8 [mem 0x-0x] hotplug [0.00] ACPI: SRAT: Node 2 PXM 9 [mem 0x-0x] hotplug [0.00] ACPI: SRAT: Node 3 PXM 10 [mem 0x-0x] hotplug [0.00] ACPI: SRAT: Node 4 PXM 11 [mem 0x-0x] hotplug [0.00] ACPI: SRAT: Node 5 PXM 12 [mem 0x-0x] hotplug [0.00] ACPI: SRAT: Node 6 PXM 13 [mem 0x-0x] hotplug [0.00] ACPI: SRAT: Node 7 PXM 14 [mem 0x-0x] hotplug [0.00] ACPI: SRAT: Node 8 PXM 15 [mem 0x-0x] hotplug ... [0.00] Initmem setup node 2 as memoryless [0.00] Initmem setup node 3 as memoryless [0.00] Initmem setup node 4 as memoryless [0.00] Initmem setup node 5 as memoryless [0.00] Initmem setup node 6 as memoryless [0.00] Initmem setup node 7 as memoryless [0.00] Initmem setup node 8 as memoryless [0.00] Initmem setup node 9 as memoryless On the VM, it looks like the following with the PXM 2-9 associated with the device. [0.00] ACPI: SRAT: Node 2 PXM 2 [mem 0x-0x] hotplug [0.00] ACPI: SRAT: Node 3 PXM 3 [mem 0x-0x] hotplug [0.00] ACPI: SRAT: Node 4 PXM 4 [mem 0x-0x] hotplug [0.00] ACPI: SRAT: Node 5 PXM 5 [mem 0x-0x] hotplug [0.00] ACPI: SRAT: Node 6 PXM 6 [mem 0x-0x] hotplug [0.00] ACPI: SRAT: Node 7 PXM 7 [mem 0x-0x] hotplug [0.00] ACPI: SRAT: Node 8 PXM 8 [mem 0x-0x] hotplug [0.00] ACPI: SRAT: Node 9 PXM 9 [mem 0x-0x] hotplug
Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] hw/arm/virt-acpi-build: patch guest SRAT for NUMA nodes
> With an ACPI spec clarification agreed then I'm fine with > using this for all the cases that have come up in this thread. > Or a good argument that this is valid in under existing ACPI spec. Hi Jonathan I looked at the Section 5.2.16 in ACPI spec doc, but could not see any mention of whether size == 0 is invalid or be avoided. https://uefi.org/sites/default/files/resources/ACPI_6_3_final_Jan30.pdf If that is not convincing, do you have suggestions as to how I may confirm this?
Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] hw/arm/virt-acpi-build: patch guest SRAT for NUMA nodes
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 13:00:43 -0300 Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 03:53:51PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 11:03:28 -0300 > > Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 02:54:40PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > > > > > > Possible the ASWG folk would say this is fine and I'm reading too much > > > > into > > > > the spec, but I'd definitely suggest asking them via the appropriate > > > > path, > > > > or throwing in a code first proposal for a comment on this special case > > > > and > > > > see what response you get - my guess is it will be 'fix Linux' :( > > > > > > The goal here is for qemu to emulate what the bare metal environment > > > is doing. > > > > > > There may be a legitimate question if what the bare metal FW has done > > > is legitimate (though let's face it, there are lots of creative ACPI > > > things around), but I don't quite see how this is a qemu question? > > > > > > Unless you are taking the position that qemu should not emulate this > > > HW? > > > > Ok. I'd failed to register that the bare metal code was doing this though > > with hindsight I guess that is obvious. Though without more info or > > a bare metal example being given its also possible the BIOS was doing > > enumeration etc (like CXL does for all < 2.0 devices) and hence was > > building SRAT with the necessary memory ranges in place - even if the > > driver then does the hot add dance later. > > Ankit, maybe you can share some relavent ACPI dumps from the physical > hardware and explain how this compares? > > > That's dubious and likely to break at some point unless the spec > > comprehends this use case, but meh, so are lots of other things and > > the hardware vendor gets to pick up the pieces and deal with grumpy > > customers. > > Yes. With my grumpy hat on, good to actually go try and get this clarification in the spec anyway. We moan about people doing evil things or spec gaps, but don't always circle back to fix them. Obviously I'm not claiming to be good on this front either... > > > I don't currently see this as a safe solution for the proposed other > > use cases however that are virtualization only. > > So, how should that translate into a command line experiance? Sounds > like the broad concept is general but this actual specific HW is not? I'm not following. I think, to enable this platform, this will need to be vfio tied (or some new similar device). The other usecases were things like virtio-mem where I'd just suggest leaving restricted to only referring to existing nodes until a well defined solution is in place to provide the memory only nodes + hotplug mix. Without a specification clarification, we'd have to fix this in Linux and enable dynamic NUMA node creation (or just enable a pool of extra ones to grab from which is sort of a hacky way to do the same). With an ACPI spec clarification agreed then I'm fine with using this for all the cases that have come up in this thread. Or a good argument that this is valid in under existing ACPI spec. Jonathan > > Thanks, > Jason
Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] hw/arm/virt-acpi-build: patch guest SRAT for NUMA nodes
On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 03:53:51PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 11:03:28 -0300 > Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 02:54:40PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > > > > Possible the ASWG folk would say this is fine and I'm reading too much > > > into > > > the spec, but I'd definitely suggest asking them via the appropriate path, > > > or throwing in a code first proposal for a comment on this special case > > > and > > > see what response you get - my guess is it will be 'fix Linux' :( > > > > The goal here is for qemu to emulate what the bare metal environment > > is doing. > > > > There may be a legitimate question if what the bare metal FW has done > > is legitimate (though let's face it, there are lots of creative ACPI > > things around), but I don't quite see how this is a qemu question? > > > > Unless you are taking the position that qemu should not emulate this > > HW? > > Ok. I'd failed to register that the bare metal code was doing this though > with hindsight I guess that is obvious. Though without more info or > a bare metal example being given its also possible the BIOS was doing > enumeration etc (like CXL does for all < 2.0 devices) and hence was > building SRAT with the necessary memory ranges in place - even if the > driver then does the hot add dance later. Ankit, maybe you can share some relavent ACPI dumps from the physical hardware and explain how this compares? > That's dubious and likely to break at some point unless the spec > comprehends this use case, but meh, so are lots of other things and > the hardware vendor gets to pick up the pieces and deal with grumpy > customers. Yes. > I don't currently see this as a safe solution for the proposed other > use cases however that are virtualization only. So, how should that translate into a command line experiance? Sounds like the broad concept is general but this actual specific HW is not? Thanks, Jason
Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] hw/arm/virt-acpi-build: patch guest SRAT for NUMA nodes
On Mon, 25 Sep 2023 11:03:28 -0300 Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 02:54:40PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > > Possible the ASWG folk would say this is fine and I'm reading too much into > > the spec, but I'd definitely suggest asking them via the appropriate path, > > or throwing in a code first proposal for a comment on this special case and > > see what response you get - my guess is it will be 'fix Linux' :( > > The goal here is for qemu to emulate what the bare metal environment > is doing. > > There may be a legitimate question if what the bare metal FW has done > is legitimate (though let's face it, there are lots of creative ACPI > things around), but I don't quite see how this is a qemu question? > > Unless you are taking the position that qemu should not emulate this > HW? Ok. I'd failed to register that the bare metal code was doing this though with hindsight I guess that is obvious. Though without more info or a bare metal example being given its also possible the BIOS was doing enumeration etc (like CXL does for all < 2.0 devices) and hence was building SRAT with the necessary memory ranges in place - even if the driver then does the hot add dance later. That's dubious and likely to break at some point unless the spec comprehends this use case, but meh, so are lots of other things and the hardware vendor gets to pick up the pieces and deal with grumpy customers. I don't currently see this as a safe solution for the proposed other use cases however that are virtualization only. Jonathan > > Jason
Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] hw/arm/virt-acpi-build: patch guest SRAT for NUMA nodes
On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 02:54:40PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > Possible the ASWG folk would say this is fine and I'm reading too much into > the spec, but I'd definitely suggest asking them via the appropriate path, > or throwing in a code first proposal for a comment on this special case and > see what response you get - my guess is it will be 'fix Linux' :( The goal here is for qemu to emulate what the bare metal environment is doing. There may be a legitimate question if what the bare metal FW has done is legitimate (though let's face it, there are lots of creative ACPI things around), but I don't quite see how this is a qemu question? Unless you are taking the position that qemu should not emulate this HW? Jason
Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] hw/arm/virt-acpi-build: patch guest SRAT for NUMA nodes
On Fri, 22 Sep 2023 05:49:46 +
Ankit Agrawal wrote:
> Hi Jonathan
Hi Ankit,
>
> > > +if (pcidev->pdev.has_coherent_memory) {
> > > +uint64_t start_node = object_property_get_uint(obj,
> > > + "dev_mem_pxm_start", &error_abort);
> > > +uint64_t node_count = object_property_get_uint(obj,
> > > + "dev_mem_pxm_count", &error_abort);
> > > +uint64_t node_index;
> > > +
> > > +/*
> > > + * Add the node_count PXM domains starting from start_node as
> > > + * hot pluggable. The VM kernel parse the PXM domains and
> > > + * creates NUMA nodes.
> > > + */
> > > +for (node_index = 0; node_index < node_count; node_index++)
> > > +build_srat_memory(table_data, 0, 0, start_node +
> > > node_index,
> > > +MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED |
> > > + MEM_AFFINITY_HOTPLUGGABLE);
> >
> > 0 size SRAT entries for memory? That's not valid.
>
> Can you explain in what sense are these invalid? The Linux kernel accepts
> such setting and I had tested it.
ACPI specification doesn't define any means of 'updating' the memory range,
so whilst I guess they are not specifically disallowed without a spec definition
of what it means this is walking into a mine field. In particular the
description of the hot pluggable bit worries me:
"The system hardware supports hot-add and hot-remove of this memory region."
So I think your definition is calling out that you can hot plug memory into
a region of zero size. To me that's nonsensical so a paranoid OS writer
might just spit out firmware error message and refuse to boot.
There is no guarantee other operating systems won't blow up if they see one
of these. To be able to do this safely I think you probably need an ACPI
spec update to say what such a zero length, zero base region means.
Possible the ASWG folk would say this is fine and I'm reading too much into
the spec, but I'd definitely suggest asking them via the appropriate path,
or throwing in a code first proposal for a comment on this special case and
see what response you get - my guess is it will be 'fix Linux' :(
>
> > Seems like you've run into the same issue CXL has with dynamic addition of
> > nodes to the kernel and all you want to do here is make sure it thinks
> > there are
> > enough nodes so initializes various structures large enough.
> >
> Yes, exactly.
>
RE: [PATCH v1 3/4] hw/arm/virt-acpi-build: patch guest SRAT for NUMA nodes
Hi Jonathan
> > +if (pcidev->pdev.has_coherent_memory) {
> > +uint64_t start_node = object_property_get_uint(obj,
> > + "dev_mem_pxm_start", &error_abort);
> > +uint64_t node_count = object_property_get_uint(obj,
> > + "dev_mem_pxm_count", &error_abort);
> > +uint64_t node_index;
> > +
> > +/*
> > + * Add the node_count PXM domains starting from start_node as
> > + * hot pluggable. The VM kernel parse the PXM domains and
> > + * creates NUMA nodes.
> > + */
> > +for (node_index = 0; node_index < node_count; node_index++)
> > +build_srat_memory(table_data, 0, 0, start_node +
> > node_index,
> > +MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED |
> > + MEM_AFFINITY_HOTPLUGGABLE);
>
> 0 size SRAT entries for memory? That's not valid.
Can you explain in what sense are these invalid? The Linux kernel accepts
such setting and I had tested it.
> Seems like you've run into the same issue CXL has with dynamic addition of
> nodes to the kernel and all you want to do here is make sure it thinks there
> are
> enough nodes so initializes various structures large enough.
>
Yes, exactly.
Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] hw/arm/virt-acpi-build: patch guest SRAT for NUMA nodes
On 15.09.23 16:52, Igor Mammedov wrote: On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 19:45:58 -0700 wrote: From: Ankit Agrawal During bootup, Linux kernel parse the ACPI SRAT to determine the PXM ids. This allows for the creation of NUMA nodes for each unique id. Insert a series of the unique PXM ids in the VM SRAT ACPI table. The range of nodes can be determined from the "dev_mem_pxm_start" and "dev_mem_pxm_count" object properties associated with the device. These nodes as made MEM_AFFINITY_HOTPLUGGABLE. This allows the kernel to create memory-less NUMA nodes on bootup to which a subrange (or entire range) of device memory can be added/removed. QEMU already has 'memory devices'. perhaps this case belongs to the same class CCing David. There is demand for something similar for memory devices (DIMMs, virtio-mem) as well. -- Cheers, David / dhildenb
Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] hw/arm/virt-acpi-build: patch guest SRAT for NUMA nodes
On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 19:45:58 -0700
wrote:
> From: Ankit Agrawal
>
> During bootup, Linux kernel parse the ACPI SRAT to determine the PXM ids.
> This allows for the creation of NUMA nodes for each unique id.
>
> Insert a series of the unique PXM ids in the VM SRAT ACPI table. The
> range of nodes can be determined from the "dev_mem_pxm_start" and
> "dev_mem_pxm_count" object properties associated with the device. These
> nodes as made MEM_AFFINITY_HOTPLUGGABLE. This allows the kernel to create
> memory-less NUMA nodes on bootup to which a subrange (or entire range) of
> device memory can be added/removed.
QEMU already has 'memory devices'. perhaps this case belongs to the same class
CCing David.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ankit Agrawal
> ---
> hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c | 54
> 1 file changed, 54 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c b/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c
> index 6b674231c2..6d1e3b6b8a 100644
> --- a/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c
> +++ b/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c
> @@ -46,6 +46,7 @@
> #include "hw/acpi/hmat.h"
> #include "hw/pci/pcie_host.h"
> #include "hw/pci/pci.h"
> +#include "hw/vfio/pci.h"
> #include "hw/pci/pci_bus.h"
> #include "hw/pci-host/gpex.h"
> #include "hw/arm/virt.h"
> @@ -515,6 +516,57 @@ build_spcr(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker,
> VirtMachineState *vms)
> acpi_table_end(linker, &table);
> }
>
> +static int devmem_device_list(Object *obj, void *opaque)
> +{
> +GSList **list = opaque;
> +
> +if (object_dynamic_cast(obj, TYPE_VFIO_PCI)) {
> +*list = g_slist_append(*list, DEVICE(obj));
> +}
> +
> +object_child_foreach(obj, devmem_device_list, opaque);
> +return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static GSList *devmem_get_device_list(void)
> +{
> +GSList *list = NULL;
> +
> +object_child_foreach(qdev_get_machine(), devmem_device_list, &list);
> +return list;
> +}
> +
> +static void build_srat_devmem(GArray *table_data)
> +{
> +GSList *device_list, *list = devmem_get_device_list();
> +
> +for (device_list = list; device_list; device_list = device_list->next) {
> +DeviceState *dev = device_list->data;
> +Object *obj = OBJECT(dev);
> +VFIOPCIDevice *pcidev
> += ((VFIOPCIDevice *)object_dynamic_cast(OBJECT(obj),
> + TYPE_VFIO_PCI));
> +
> +if (pcidev->pdev.has_coherent_memory) {
> +uint64_t start_node = object_property_get_uint(obj,
> + "dev_mem_pxm_start", &error_abort);
> +uint64_t node_count = object_property_get_uint(obj,
> + "dev_mem_pxm_count", &error_abort);
> +uint64_t node_index;
> +
> +/*
> + * Add the node_count PXM domains starting from start_node as
> + * hot pluggable. The VM kernel parse the PXM domains and
> + * creates NUMA nodes.
> + */
> +for (node_index = 0; node_index < node_count; node_index++)
> +build_srat_memory(table_data, 0, 0, start_node + node_index,
> +MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED | MEM_AFFINITY_HOTPLUGGABLE);
> +}
> +}
> +g_slist_free(list);
> +}
> +
> /*
> * ACPI spec, Revision 5.1
> * 5.2.16 System Resource Affinity Table (SRAT)
> @@ -569,6 +621,8 @@ build_srat(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker,
> VirtMachineState *vms)
>MEM_AFFINITY_HOTPLUGGABLE | MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED);
> }
>
> +build_srat_devmem(table_data);
> +
> acpi_table_end(linker, &table);
> }
>
Re: [PATCH v1 3/4] hw/arm/virt-acpi-build: patch guest SRAT for NUMA nodes
On Thu, 14 Sep 2023 19:45:58 -0700
wrote:
> From: Ankit Agrawal
>
> During bootup, Linux kernel parse the ACPI SRAT to determine the PXM ids.
> This allows for the creation of NUMA nodes for each unique id.
>
> Insert a series of the unique PXM ids in the VM SRAT ACPI table. The
> range of nodes can be determined from the "dev_mem_pxm_start" and
> "dev_mem_pxm_count" object properties associated with the device. These
> nodes as made MEM_AFFINITY_HOTPLUGGABLE. This allows the kernel to create
> memory-less NUMA nodes on bootup to which a subrange (or entire range) of
> device memory can be added/removed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ankit Agrawal
> ---
> hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c | 54
> 1 file changed, 54 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c b/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c
> index 6b674231c2..6d1e3b6b8a 100644
> --- a/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c
> +++ b/hw/arm/virt-acpi-build.c
> @@ -46,6 +46,7 @@
> #include "hw/acpi/hmat.h"
> #include "hw/pci/pcie_host.h"
> #include "hw/pci/pci.h"
> +#include "hw/vfio/pci.h"
> #include "hw/pci/pci_bus.h"
> #include "hw/pci-host/gpex.h"
> #include "hw/arm/virt.h"
> @@ -515,6 +516,57 @@ build_spcr(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker,
> VirtMachineState *vms)
> acpi_table_end(linker, &table);
> }
>
> +static int devmem_device_list(Object *obj, void *opaque)
> +{
> +GSList **list = opaque;
> +
> +if (object_dynamic_cast(obj, TYPE_VFIO_PCI)) {
> +*list = g_slist_append(*list, DEVICE(obj));
> +}
> +
> +object_child_foreach(obj, devmem_device_list, opaque);
> +return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static GSList *devmem_get_device_list(void)
> +{
> +GSList *list = NULL;
> +
> +object_child_foreach(qdev_get_machine(), devmem_device_list, &list);
> +return list;
> +}
> +
> +static void build_srat_devmem(GArray *table_data)
> +{
> +GSList *device_list, *list = devmem_get_device_list();
Why build a list for this purpose? Easier to just do all this handling in the
callback.
object_child_foreach_recursive(qdev_get_machine(), add_devmem_srat,
table);
All the code below goes in the callback.
Though if you follow the suggestion I made in patch 1 this code all changes
anyway
as the linkage is the other way.
> +
> +for (device_list = list; device_list; device_list = device_list->next) {
> +DeviceState *dev = device_list->data;
> +Object *obj = OBJECT(dev);
> +VFIOPCIDevice *pcidev
> += ((VFIOPCIDevice *)object_dynamic_cast(OBJECT(obj),
> + TYPE_VFIO_PCI));
> +
> +if (pcidev->pdev.has_coherent_memory) {
> +uint64_t start_node = object_property_get_uint(obj,
> + "dev_mem_pxm_start", &error_abort);
> +uint64_t node_count = object_property_get_uint(obj,
> + "dev_mem_pxm_count", &error_abort);
> +uint64_t node_index;
> +
> +/*
> + * Add the node_count PXM domains starting from start_node as
> + * hot pluggable. The VM kernel parse the PXM domains and
> + * creates NUMA nodes.
> + */
> +for (node_index = 0; node_index < node_count; node_index++)
> +build_srat_memory(table_data, 0, 0, start_node + node_index,
> +MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED | MEM_AFFINITY_HOTPLUGGABLE);
0 size SRAT entries for memory? That's not valid.
Seems like you've run into the same issue CXL has with dynamic addition of
nodes to the kernel and all you want to do here is make sure it thinks there
are enough nodes so initializes various structures large enough.
I don't like the CXL solution (add one per CFWMS) either and think this needs
fixing in Linux. This doesn't feel like a valid way to do that to me.
You 'could' let EDK2 or whatever you are running finish enumerating
all the PCI bus - at which point I'm guessing your coherent ranges are
visible? At that point, if the description provided to QEMU is sufficiently
detailed (which BAR etc) then in the rebuild of tables that occurs via
virt_acpi_build_update()
I'll add that as you are want this in Virt, chances are Peter is going to
ask for DT support (welcome to my world of pain as I have no idea what
that would look like :) I've still not figure out how to fixup the misisng
DT support for PXBs.
> +}
> +}
> +g_slist_free(list);
> +}
> +
> /*
> * ACPI spec, Revision 5.1
> * 5.2.16 System Resource Affinity Table (SRAT)
> @@ -569,6 +621,8 @@ build_srat(GArray *table_data, BIOSLinker *linker,
> VirtMachineState *vms)
>MEM_AFFINITY_HOTPLUGGABLE | MEM_AFFINITY_ENABLED);
> }
>
> +build_srat_devmem(table_data);
> +
> acpi_table_end(linker, &table);
> }
>
