On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 05:14:15PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 12:19:39PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > From: Heiko Stuebner <heiko.stuebner@xxxxxxxx>
> > @@ -333,8 +335,6 @@ static int c_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
> >
> > of_node_put(node);
> > } else {
> > - if (!acpi_get_riscv_isa(NULL, cpu_id, &isa))
> > - print_isa(m, isa);
> >
>
> Extra blank line here to remove. Actually the whole 'else' can be removed
> because the print_mmu() call can be brought up above the
> 'if (acpi_disabled)'
Can it be? I intentionally did not make that change - wasn't sure
whether re-ordering the fields in there was permissible.
One of the few things I know does parsing of /proc/cpuinfo is:
https://github.com/google/cpu_features/blob/main/src/impl_riscv_linux.c
and that doesn't seem to care about the mmu, but does rely on
vendor/uarch ordering.
Makes me wonder, does ACPI break things by leaving out uarch/vendor
fields, if there is something that expects them to exist? We should
not intentionally break stuff in /proc/cpuinfo, but can't say I feel any
sympathy for naively parsing it.
> > print_mmu(m);
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
