On 2019/10/22 21:55, Robin Murphy wrote: > On 21/10/2019 05:05, Yunsheng Lin wrote: >> On 2019/10/19 16:34, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>> On Sat, Oct 19, 2019 at 02:45:43PM +0800, Yunsheng Lin wrote: >>>> + if (nr_node_ids > 1 && dev_to_node(bus->bridge) == NUMA_NO_NODE) >>>> + dev_err(bus->bridge, FW_BUG "No node assigned on NUMA capable HW >>>> by BIOS. Please contact your vendor for updates.\n"); >>>> + >>> >>> The whole idea of mentioning a BIOS in architeture indepent code doesn't >>> make sense at all. > > [ Come to think of it, I'm sure an increasing number of x86 firmwares don't > even implement a PC BIOS any more... ] > > In all fairness, the server-class Arm-based machines I've come across so far > do seem to consistently call their EFI firmware images "BIOS" despite the > clear anachronism. At least the absurdity of conflating a system setup > program with a semiconductor process seems to have mostly died out ;) > >> Mentioning the BIOS is to tell user what firmware is broken, so that >> user can report this to their vendor by referring the specific firmware. >> >> It seems we can specific the node through different ways(DT, ACPI, etc). >> >> Is there a better name for mentioning instead of BIOS, or we should do >> the checking and warning in the architeture dependent code? >> >> Or maybe just remove the BIOS from the above log? > > Even though there may be some degree of historical convention hanging around > on ACPI-based systems, that argument almost certainly doesn't hold for > OF/FDT/etc. - the "[Firmware Bug]:" prefix is hopefully indicative enough, so > I'd say just drop the "by BIOS" part.
Will drop the "by BIOS" part if there is another version. Tnanks for clarifying. > > Robin. > > . >
