Re: [PATCH v4 01/20] ACPI: PPTT: Use table offset as fw_token instead of virtual address

From: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>
To: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	Atish Patra <atishp@atishpatra.org>,
	Atish Patra <atishp@rivosinc.com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@linaro.org>,
	Dietmar Eggemann <dietmar.eggemann@arm.com>,
	Qing Wang <wangqing@vivo.com>, Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
	"Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
	Pierre Gondois <pierre.gondois@arm.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 01/20] ACPI: PPTT: Use table offset as fw_token instead of virtual address
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2022 14:41:54 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Yrmzkwur1NVQ8NSA@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220621192034.3332546-2-sudeep.holla@arm.com>

Hi Sudeep,

On Tuesday 21 Jun 2022 at 20:20:15 (+0100), Sudeep Holla wrote:
> There is need to use the cache sharing information quite early during
> the boot before the secondary cores are up and running. The permanent
> memory map for all the ACPI tables(via acpi_permanent_mmap) is turned
> on in acpi_early_init() which is quite late for the above requirement.
> 
> As a result there is possibility that the ACPI PPTT gets mapped to
> different virtual addresses. In such scenarios, using virtual address as
> fw_token before the acpi_permanent_mmap is enabled results in different
> fw_token for the same cache entity and hence wrong cache sharing
> information will be deduced based on the same.
> 
> Instead of using virtual address, just use the table offset as the
> unique firmware token for the caches. The same offset is used as
> ACPI identifiers if the firmware has not set a valid one for other
> entries in the ACPI PPTT.
> 
> Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
> ---
>  drivers/acpi/pptt.c | 3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> Hi Rafael,
> 
> If you are happy with this change, can you provide Ack, so that it can be
> merged together with other changes ?
> 
> Regards,
> Sudeep
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pptt.c b/drivers/acpi/pptt.c
> index 701f61c01359..763f021d45e6 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/pptt.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pptt.c
> @@ -437,7 +437,8 @@ static void cache_setup_acpi_cpu(struct acpi_table_header *table,
>  		pr_debug("found = %p %p\n", found_cache, cpu_node);
>  		if (found_cache)
>  			update_cache_properties(this_leaf, found_cache,
> -			                        cpu_node, table->revision);
> +						ACPI_TO_POINTER(ACPI_PTR_DIFF(cpu_node, table)),
> +						table->revision);
>  
>  		index++;
>  	}
> -- 
> 2.36.1
> 

I've run the set on Kunpeng920 where Dietmar noticed an issue [1] before
and it looks good to me.

Tested-by: Ionela Voinescu <ionela.voinescu@arm.com>

[1]
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/0bf199a0-251d-323c-974a-bfd4e26f4cce@arm.com/

Thanks,
Ionela.

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel