On 12/09/18 16:27, Sudeep Holla wrote: > > > On 12/09/18 15:41, Jeffrey Hugo wrote: [...] >> >> Correct. However, what if you have a NOCACHE (not architecturally >> specified), that is fully described in PPTT, as a non-unified cache >> (data only)? Unlikely? Maybe. Still seem possible though, therefore I >> feel this assumption is suspect. >> > > Yes, we have other issues if the architecturally not specified cache is > not unified irrespective of what PPTT says. So we may need to review and > see if that assumption is removed everywhere. > > Until then why can't a simple change fix the issue you have: > > -->8 > > diff --git i/drivers/acpi/pptt.c w/drivers/acpi/pptt.c > index d1e26cb599bf..f74131201f5e 100644 > --- i/drivers/acpi/pptt.c > +++ w/drivers/acpi/pptt.c > @@ -406,7 +406,8 @@ static void update_cache_properties(struct cacheinfo > *this_leaf, > * update the cache type as well. > */ > if (this_leaf->type == CACHE_TYPE_NOCACHE && > - valid_flags == PPTT_CHECKED_ATTRIBUTES) > + (valid_flags == PPTT_CHECKED_ATTRIBUTES || > + found_cache->flags & ACPI_PPTT_CACHE_TYPE_VALID)) Looking at this again, if we are supporting just presence of cache type and size(may be), then we can drop the whole valid_flags thing here. > this_leaf->type = CACHE_TYPE_UNIFIED; > } > -- Regards, Sudeep
