On 28/02/18 22:06, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> Call ACPI cache parsing routines from base cacheinfo code if ACPI
> is enable. 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 | 14 ++++++++++----
> include/linux/cacheinfo.h | 9 +++++++++
> 3 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pptt.c b/drivers/acpi/pptt.c
> index 883e4318c6cd..c98f94ebd272 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/pptt.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pptt.c
> @@ -343,6 +343,7 @@ static void update_cache_properties(struct cacheinfo *this_leaf,
> {
> int valid_flags = 0;
>
> + this_leaf->fw_token = cpu_node;
Any reason why this can't part of 05/13 ?
> 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 597aacb233fc..2880e2ab01f5 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
> @@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ 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
> */
> @@ -214,6 +214,11 @@ 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);
> @@ -227,8 +232,8 @@ static int cache_shared_cpu_map_setup(unsigned int cpu)
> 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;
> + ret = cache_setup_acpi(cpu);
> +
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> @@ -279,7 +284,8 @@ static void cache_shared_cpu_map_remove(unsigned int cpu)
> cpumask_clear_cpu(cpu, &sib_leaf->shared_cpu_map);
> cpumask_clear_cpu(sibling, &this_leaf->shared_cpu_map);
> }
> - of_node_put(this_leaf->fw_token);
> + if (of_have_populated_dt())
> + of_node_put(this_leaf->fw_token);
> }
> }
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/cacheinfo.h b/include/linux/cacheinfo.h
> index 0c6f658054d2..1446d3f053a2 100644
> --- a/include/linux/cacheinfo.h
> +++ b/include/linux/cacheinfo.h
> @@ -97,6 +97,15 @@ int func(unsigned int cpu) \
> struct cpu_cacheinfo *get_cpu_cacheinfo(unsigned int cpu);
> int init_cache_level(unsigned int cpu);
> int populate_cache_leaves(unsigned int cpu);
> +int cache_setup_acpi(unsigned int cpu);
> +int acpi_find_last_cache_level(unsigned int cpu);
> +#ifndef CONFIG_ACPI
> +int acpi_find_last_cache_level(unsigned int cpu)
The above 3 lines looks weird, can't it be:
#ifdef CONFIG_ACPI
int acpi_find_last_cache_level(unsigned int cpu);
#else
int acpi_find_last_cache_level(unsigned int cpu)
{
/* ACPI kernels should be built with PPTT support */
return 0;
}
Also I think it should be CONFIG_ACPI_PPTT, otherwise it might cause
issue on platforms which define CONFIG_ACPI but CONFIG_ACPI_PPTT is not.
I can only relate this to the s390 error reported by kbuild robot.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
--
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
