Re: [PATCH] PCI: Warn about host bridge device when its numa node is NO_NODE

[Robin Murphy]

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.

Robin.