On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 07:04:52PM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 11:28:21PM +0530, Sunil V L wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 05:05:56PM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > > On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 07:06:38PM +0530, Sunil V L wrote:
> > > > RINTC structures in the MADT provide mapping between the hartid
> > > > and the CPU. This is required many times even at run time like
> > > > cpuinfo. So, instead of parsing the ACPI table every time, cache
> > > > the RINTC structures and provide a function to get the correct
> > > > RINTC structure for a given cpu.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Sunil V L <sunilvl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > arch/riscv/include/asm/acpi.h | 9 ++++++
> > > > arch/riscv/kernel/acpi.c | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > 2 files changed, 65 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/acpi.h
> > > > index 111a8ed10af1..8be16c1ef7da 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/acpi.h
> > > > +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/acpi.h
> > > > @@ -61,6 +61,10 @@ static inline void arch_fix_phys_package_id(int num, u32 slot) { }
> > > >
> > > > int acpi_get_riscv_isa(struct acpi_table_header *table,
> > > > unsigned int cpu, const char **isa);
> > > > +
> > > > +struct acpi_madt_rintc *acpi_cpu_get_madt_rintc(int cpu);
> > > > +
> > > > +u32 get_acpi_id_for_cpu(int cpu);
> > > > #else
> > > > static inline int acpi_get_riscv_isa(struct acpi_table_header *table,
> > > > unsigned int cpu, const char **isa)
> > > > @@ -68,6 +72,11 @@ static inline int acpi_get_riscv_isa(struct acpi_table_header *table,
> > > > return -EINVAL;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > +static inline u32 get_acpi_id_for_cpu(int cpu)
> > > > +{
> > > > + return -1;
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > Why do we need this stub? I wouldn't expect non-ACPI code to need an ACPI
> > > ID.
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > #endif /* CONFIG_ACPI */
> > > >
> > > > #endif /*_ASM_ACPI_H*/
> > > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/acpi.c
> > > > index 81d448c41714..8b3d68d8225f 100644
> > > > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/acpi.c
> > > > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/acpi.c
> > > > @@ -24,6 +24,62 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_disabled);
> > > > int acpi_pci_disabled = 1; /* skip ACPI PCI scan and IRQ initialization */
> > > > EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_pci_disabled);
> > > >
> > > > +static struct acpi_madt_rintc cpu_madt_rintc[NR_CPUS];
> > > > +
> > > > +static int acpi_parse_madt_rintc(union acpi_subtable_headers *header, const unsigned long end)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct acpi_madt_rintc *rintc = (struct acpi_madt_rintc *)header;
> > > > + int cpuid;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!(rintc->flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED))
> > > > + return 0;
> > >
> > > Why not cache the data even when its disabled? We also cache the flags so
> > > we can always check later too.
> > >
> > Okay, doesn't harm.
> >
On second thought, I would like to keep this check. The reason is, it
is indexed using logical cpuid and OS will not enumerate disabled CPUs.
> > > > +
> > > > + cpuid = riscv_hartid_to_cpuid(rintc->hart_id);
> > > > + if (cpuid >= 0 && cpuid < NR_CPUS)
> > >
> > > What does it mean for the above check to fail? Bad ACPI tables?
> > >
> > This can happen when SMP is disabled but platform has more CPUs.
>
> Ah yes, NR_CPUS can be too small for the platform. Maybe a comment
> explaining that we ignore all additional cpus in the ACPI tables that
> we can't manage with the kernel's limits would be helpful here.
>
Sure.
Thanks,
Sunil
