Hi,
Thanks for taking a look at this.
On 01/22/2018 09:50 AM, Greg KH wrote:
On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 06:59:15PM -0600, Jeremy Linton wrote:
Add a entry to to struct cacheinfo to maintain a reference to the PPTT
node which can be used to match identical caches across cores. Also
stub out cache_setup_acpi() so that individual architectures can
enable ACPI topology parsing.
Signed-off-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@xxxxxxx>
---
drivers/acpi/pptt.c | 1 +
drivers/base/cacheinfo.c | 20 +++++++++++++-------
include/linux/cacheinfo.h | 9 +++++++++
3 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pptt.c b/drivers/acpi/pptt.c
index 2c4b3ed862a8..4f5ab19c3a08 100644
--- a/drivers/acpi/pptt.c
+++ b/drivers/acpi/pptt.c
@@ -329,6 +329,7 @@ static void update_cache_properties(struct cacheinfo *this_leaf,
{
int valid_flags = 0;
+ this_leaf->fw_unique = cpu_node;
if (found_cache->flags & ACPI_PPTT_SIZE_PROPERTY_VALID) {
this_leaf->size = found_cache->size;
valid_flags++;
diff --git a/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c b/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
index 217aa90fb036..ee51e33cc37c 100644
--- a/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
+++ b/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
@@ -208,16 +208,16 @@ static int cache_setup_of_node(unsigned int cpu)
if (index != cache_leaves(cpu)) /* not all OF nodes populated */
return -ENOENT;
-
return 0;
}
+
Whitespace changes not needed for this patch :(
Sure.
#else
static inline int cache_setup_of_node(unsigned int cpu) { return 0; }
static inline bool cache_leaves_are_shared(struct cacheinfo *this_leaf,
struct cacheinfo *sib_leaf)
{
/*
- * For non-DT systems, assume unique level 1 cache, system-wide
+ * For non-DT/ACPI systems, assume unique level 1 caches, system-wide
* shared caches for all other levels. This will be used only if
* arch specific code has not populated shared_cpu_map
*/
@@ -225,6 +225,11 @@ static inline bool cache_leaves_are_shared(struct cacheinfo *this_leaf,
}
#endif
+int __weak cache_setup_acpi(unsigned int cpu)
+{
+ return -ENOTSUPP;
+}
+
static int cache_shared_cpu_map_setup(unsigned int cpu)
{
struct cpu_cacheinfo *this_cpu_ci = get_cpu_cacheinfo(cpu);
@@ -235,11 +240,11 @@ static int cache_shared_cpu_map_setup(unsigned int cpu)
if (this_cpu_ci->cpu_map_populated)
return 0;
- if (of_have_populated_dt())
+ if (!acpi_disabled)
+ ret = cache_setup_acpi(cpu);
Why does acpi go first? :)
This sounds like a joke i heard...
OTOH, given that we have machines with both ACPI and DT tables, it
seemed a little clearer and a little more robust to code that so that if
ACPI is enabled to prefer it over DT information. As long as the
routines which set of of_root are protected by if (acpi_disabled) checks
it should be safe to do it either way.
+ else if (of_have_populated_dt())
ret = cache_setup_of_node(cpu);
- else if (!acpi_disabled)
- /* No cache property/hierarchy support yet in ACPI */
- ret = -ENOTSUPP;
+
if (ret)
return ret;
+int acpi_find_last_cache_level(unsigned int cpu)
+{
+ /*ACPI kernels should be built with PPTT support*/
Here are some extra ' ' characters, you need them...
Oh ok, thanks! :)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
