On Mon, Nov 21, 2022 at 06:12:12PM +0100, Pierre Gondois wrote:
> acpi_find_last_cache_level() allows to find the last level of cache
> for a given CPU. The function is only called on arm64 ACPI based
> platforms to check for cache information that would be missing in
> the CLIDR_EL1 register.
> To allow populating (struct cpu_cacheinfo).num_leaves by only parsing
> a PPTT, update acpi_find_last_cache_level() to get the 'split_levels',
> i.e. the number of cache levels being split in data/instruction
> caches.
>
> It is assumed that there will not be data/instruction caches above a
> unified cache.
> If a split level consist of one data cache and no instruction cache
> (or opposite), then the missing cache will still be populated
> by default with minimal cache information, and maximal cpumask
> (all non-existing caches have the same fw_token).
>
> Suggested-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@xxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@xxxxxxx>
> Reviewed-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/cacheinfo.c | 9 +++--
> drivers/acpi/pptt.c | 76 +++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> include/linux/cacheinfo.h | 8 ++--
> 3 files changed, 61 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/cacheinfo.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/cacheinfo.c
> index 97c42be71338..164255651d64 100644
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/cacheinfo.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/cacheinfo.c
> @@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ static void ci_leaf_init(struct cacheinfo *this_leaf,
> int init_cache_level(unsigned int cpu)
> {
> unsigned int ctype, level, leaves;
> - int fw_level;
> + int fw_level, ret;
> struct cpu_cacheinfo *this_cpu_ci = get_cpu_cacheinfo(cpu);
>
> for (level = 1, leaves = 0; level <= MAX_CACHE_LEVEL; level++) {
> @@ -61,8 +61,11 @@ int init_cache_level(unsigned int cpu)
>
> if (acpi_disabled)
> fw_level = of_find_last_cache_level(cpu);
> - else
> - fw_level = acpi_find_last_cache_level(cpu);
> + else {
You need to add braces to if as well in such cases. I think checkpatch
might tell you that. Just found this by chance.
Anyways, this looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx>
--
Regards,
Sudeep
