Re: [PATCH V3 11/20] RISC-V: ACPI: Cache and retrieve the RINTC structure

[Andrew Jones]

On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 04:58:53PM +0000, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 05:05:56PM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 07:06:38PM +0530, Sunil V L wrote:
> > > RINTC structures in the MADT provide mapping between the hartid
> > > and the CPU. This is required many times even at run time like
> > > cpuinfo. So, instead of parsing the ACPI table every time, cache
> > > the RINTC structures and provide a function to get the correct
> > > RINTC structure for a given cpu.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Sunil V L <sunilvl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/riscv/include/asm/acpi.h |  9 ++++++
> > >  arch/riscv/kernel/acpi.c      | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  2 files changed, 65 insertions(+)
> 
> > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/acpi.h
> > > index 111a8ed10af1..8be16c1ef7da 100644
> > > --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/acpi.h
> > > +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/acpi.h
> > > @@ -61,6 +61,10 @@ static inline void arch_fix_phys_package_id(int num, u32 slot) { }
> > >  
> > >  int acpi_get_riscv_isa(struct acpi_table_header *table,
> > >  		       unsigned int cpu, const char **isa);
> > > +
> > > +struct acpi_madt_rintc *acpi_cpu_get_madt_rintc(int cpu);
> > > +
> > > +u32 get_acpi_id_for_cpu(int cpu);
> > >  #else
> > >  static inline int acpi_get_riscv_isa(struct acpi_table_header *table,
> > >  				     unsigned int cpu, const char **isa)
> > > @@ -68,6 +72,11 @@ static inline int acpi_get_riscv_isa(struct acpi_table_header *table,
> > >  	return -EINVAL;
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > +static inline u32 get_acpi_id_for_cpu(int cpu)
> > > +{
> > > +	return -1;
> > > +}
> > 
> > Why do we need this stub? I wouldn't expect non-ACPI code to need an ACPI
> > ID.
> 
> I think I asked for this (or assumed it existed) in v1, when I requested
> the removal of #ifdef CONFIG_ACPI stuff in riscv_fill_hwcap().
> Personally, I'd rather have this stub than the ifdeffery :)
>

Yeah, avoiding #ifdefs with stubs is good if we need to call the function
from non-ACPI code. I'm wondering why we'd need to, though. In all the
cases introduced with this series, we could pass a 'cpu' to
acpi_get_riscv_isa() and then have acpi_get_riscv_isa() call
get_acpi_id_for_cpu() itself, for example.

We also need to be sure -1 truly means "no ACPI ID" in order to stub this.

Thanks,
drew