On 12/06/19 12:09, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 13:17:22 +0100
> Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/04/19 18:05, Igor Mammedov wrote:
>>> Correct returned value description in case 'Command field' == 0x0,
>>> it's in not PXM but CPU selector value with pending event
>>
>> (1) s/in not/not/
>>
>>>
>>> In addition describe 0 blanket value in case of not supported
>>> 'Command field' value.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>> docs/specs/acpi_cpu_hotplug.txt | 11 +++++------
>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/docs/specs/acpi_cpu_hotplug.txt
>>> b/docs/specs/acpi_cpu_hotplug.txt
>>> index 4e65286..19c508f 100644
>>> --- a/docs/specs/acpi_cpu_hotplug.txt
>>> +++ b/docs/specs/acpi_cpu_hotplug.txt
>>> @@ -56,9 +56,8 @@ read access:
>>> 3-7: reserved and should be ignored by OSPM
>>> [0x5-0x7] reserved
>>> [0x8] Command data: (DWORD access)
>>> - in case of error or unsupported command reads is 0xFFFFFFFF
>>> - current 'Command field' value:
>>> - 0: returns PXM value corresponding to device
>>> + contains 0 unless last stored in 'Command field' value is one of:
>>> + 0: contains 'CPU selector' value of a CPU with pending
>>> event[s]
>>
>> (2) I think we can improve the word order:
>>
>> last stored in 'Command field' value
>> ->
>> value last stored in 'Command field'
>>
>>>
>>> write access:
>>> offset:
>>> @@ -81,9 +80,9 @@ write access:
>>> value:
>>> 0: selects a CPU device with inserting/removing events and
>>> following reads from 'Command data' register return
>>> - selected CPU (CPU selector value). If no CPU with events
>>> - found, the current CPU selector doesn't change and
>>> - corresponding insert/remove event flags are not set.
>>> + selected CPU ('CPU selector' value).
>>> + If no CPU with events found, the current 'CPU selector'
>>> doesn't
>>> + change and corresponding insert/remove event flags are not
>>> set.
>>
>> (3) AFAICT this is only a -- useful! -- re-wrapping.
> Not sure what you are trying to say here ...
I meant that you re-wrapped the last sentence, by breaking it off to a
separate line. And that I found it useful.
Thanks
laszlo
>
>> But, since we are
>> modifying this section anyway, can we replace "flags are not set" with
>> "flags are left unchanged" or "flags are not modified"?
> sure
>
>
>> "set" is ambiguous with bit fields: it can mean "rewritten", and it can
>> mean "set to 1".
>>
>>> 1: following writes to 'Command data' register set OST event
>>> register in QEMU
>>> 2: following writes to 'Command data' register set OST status
>>>
>>
>> Anyway, these are all superficial comments. Pick up whatever you agree
>> with. Either way:
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek <ler...@redhat.com>
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Laszlo
>
