| Message ID | 20180425233121.13270-8-jeremy.linton@arm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested, archived |
| Headers | show |
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))
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 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. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
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@arm.com>
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..70ef44669fa3 100644 --- a/include/linux/cacheinfo.h +++ b/include/linux/cacheinfo.h @@ -97,6 +97,16 @@ 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); +#ifndef CONFIG_ACPI +static inline int acpi_find_last_cache_level(unsigned int cpu) +{ + /* ACPI kernels should be built with PPTT support */ + return 0; +} +#else +int acpi_find_last_cache_level(unsigned int cpu); +#endif const struct attribute_group *cache_get_priv_group(struct cacheinfo *this_leaf);
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@arm.com> --- drivers/base/cacheinfo.c | 14 ++++++++++---- include/linux/cacheinfo.h | 10 ++++++++++ 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)