On 26/04/18 19:57, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 04/26/2018 06:05 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 26/04/18 00:31, 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.
>>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> +#ifndef CONFIG_ACPI
>>> +static inline int acpi_find_last_cache_level(unsigned int cpu)
>>> +{
>>> + /* ACPI kernels should be built with PPTT support */
>>
>> This sounds incorrect for x86. But I understand why you have it there.
>> Does it makes sense to change above to .. ?
>>
>> #if !defined(CONFIG_ACPI) || (defined(CONFIG_ACPI) &&
>> !(CONFIG_ACPI_PPTT))
>>
> I'm not sure what that buys us, if anything you want more non-users of
> the function to be falling through to the function prototype rather than
> the static inline. The only place any of this matters (as long as the
> compiler/linker is tossing the static inline) is arm64 because its the
> only arch making a call to acpi_find_last_cache_level(). ACPI_PPTT is
> also only visible on arm64 at the moment due to being wrapped in a if
> ARM64 in the Kconfig
>
Fair enough.
> Put another way, I wouldn't expect an arch to have a 'user' visible
> option to enable/disable parsing the PPTT. If an arch can handle
> ACPI/PPTT topology then I would expect it to be fixed to the CONFIG_ACPI
> state. What happens when acpi_find_last_cache_level() is called should
> only be dependent on whether ACPI is enabled, the PPTT parser itself
> will handle the cases of a missing table.
Agreed. But technically that statement is still incorrect as x86 ACPI
build need not have PPTT enabled. IMO you can reword it, but I will
leave that to Rafael :)
Other than that, it looks good.
Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx>
--
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
