Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v8 05/13] ACPI/PPTT: Add Processor Properties Topology Table parsing | From | Jeremy Linton <> | Date | Fri, 27 Apr 2018 11:20:44 -0500 |
| |
Hi,
Thanks for taking a look at this.
On 04/27/2018 06:02 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 1:31 AM, Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com> wrote: >> ACPI 6.2 adds a new table, which describes how processing units >> are related to each other in tree like fashion. Caches are >> also sprinkled throughout the tree and describe the properties >> of the caches in relation to other caches and processing units. >> >> Add the code to parse the cache hierarchy and report the total >> number of levels of cache for a given core using >> acpi_find_last_cache_level() as well as fill out the individual >> cores cache information with cache_setup_acpi() once the >> cpu_cacheinfo structure has been populated by the arch specific >> code. >> >> An additional patch later in the set adds the ability to report >> peers in the topology using find_acpi_cpu_topology() >> to report a unique ID for each processing unit at a given level >> in the tree. These unique id's can then be used to match related >> processing units which exist as threads, within a given >> package, etc. >> >> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com> >> Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com> >> --- >> drivers/acpi/pptt.c | 518 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 518 insertions(+) >> create mode 100644 drivers/acpi/pptt.c >> >> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pptt.c b/drivers/acpi/pptt.c >> new file mode 100644 >> index 000000000000..cced71ef851a >> --- /dev/null >> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pptt.c >> @@ -0,0 +1,518 @@ >> +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 >> +/* >> + * pptt.c - parsing of Processor Properties Topology Table >> + * >> + * Copyright (C) 2018, ARM >> + * >> + * This file implements parsing of Processor Properties Topology Table (PPTT) >> + * which is optionally used to describe the processor and cache topology. >> + * Due to the relative pointers used throughout the table, this doesn't >> + * leverage the existing subtable parsing in the kernel. >> + * >> + * The PPTT structure is an inverted tree, with each node potentially >> + * holding one or two inverted tree data structures describing >> + * the caches available at that level. Each cache structure optionally >> + * contains properties describing the cache at a given level which can be >> + * used to override hardware probed values. >> + */ >> +#define pr_fmt(fmt) "ACPI PPTT: " fmt >> + >> +#include <linux/acpi.h> >> +#include <linux/cacheinfo.h> >> +#include <acpi/processor.h> >> + >> +/** >> + * fetch_pptt_subtable() - Find/Verify that the PPTT ref is a valid subtable > > The parens above are at least redundant (if not harmful). Everywhere > else in a similar context too.
The kerneldoc ones? I guess i'm confused the kernel doc example in doc-guide/kernel-doc has
* function_name() - Brief description of function.
> > Also kerneldoc comments document function arguments too as a rule, so > please do that here and wherever you use kerneldoc comments in the > patchset.
Ok, sure.
> >> + * >> + * Given the PPTT table, find and verify that the subtable entry >> + * is located within the table >> + * >> + * Return: acpi_subtable_header* or NULL >> + */ >> +static struct acpi_subtable_header *fetch_pptt_subtable(struct acpi_table_header *table_hdr, >> + u32 pptt_ref) >> +{ >> + struct acpi_subtable_header *entry; >> + >> + /* there isn't a subtable at reference 0 */ >> + if (pptt_ref < sizeof(struct acpi_subtable_header)) >> + return NULL; >> + >> + if (pptt_ref + sizeof(struct acpi_subtable_header) > table_hdr->length) >> + return NULL; >> + >> + entry = ACPI_ADD_PTR(struct acpi_subtable_header, table_hdr, pptt_ref); >> + >> + if (entry->length == 0) >> + return NULL; >> + >> + if (pptt_ref + entry->length > table_hdr->length) >> + return NULL; >> + >> + return entry; >> +} > > Apart from the above I'm not entirely sure why you need the changes in > patch [09/13] to go in a separate patch. All of them are new code > going into the file created by this patch, so why not to put them > here?
Ok, I was doing that because Lorenzo asked for it, but he hasn't said much so I will collapse it back together. That makes me happy, as splitting chunks between patches is a pain anyway.
| |