Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] ACPI/PPTT: Add support for ACPI 6.3 thread flag

[Jeremy Linton]

Hi,

On 6/18/19 12:23 PM, John Garry wrote:
> On 18/06/2019 15:40, Valentin Schneider wrote:
> > On 18/06/2019 15:21, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > > + * Return: -ENOENT if the PPTT doesn't exist, the CPU cannot be 
> > > > > found or
> > > > > + *ÂÂÂÂÂÂ the table revision isn't new enough.
> > > > > + * Otherwise returns flag value
> > > > > + */
> > > >
> > > > Nit: strictly speaking we're not returning the flag value but its mask
> > > > applied to the flags field. I don't think anyone will care about 
> > > > getting
> > > > the actual flag value, but it should be made obvious in the doc:
> > >
> > > Or I clarify the code to actually do what the comments says. Maybe 
> > > that is what John G was also pointing out too?
>
> No, I was just saying that the kernel topology can be broken without 
> this series.
>
> > Mmm I didn't find any reply from John regarding this in v1, but I 
> > wouldn't
> > mind either way, as long as the doc & code are aligned.
>
> BTW, to me, function acpi_pptt_cpu_is_thread() seems to try to do too 
> much, i.e. check if the PPTT is new enough to support the thread flag 
> and also check if it is set for a specific cpu. I'd consider separate 
> functions here.

? Your suggesting replacing the


if (table->revision >= rev)
	cpu_node = acpi_find_processor_node(table, acpi_cpu_id);

check with

if (revision_check(table, rev))
	cpu_node = acpi_find_processor_node(table, acpi_cpu_id);


and a function like

static int revision_check(acpixxxx *table, int rev)
{
	return (table->revision >= rev);
}

Although, frankly if one were to do this, it should probably be a macro 
with the table type, and used in the dozen or so other places I found 
doing similar checks (spcr, iort, etc).

Or something else?




> thanks,
> John
>
> > [...]
> >
> > .