From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jhugo@codeaurora.org (Jeffrey Hugo) Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 08:16:31 -0600 Subject: [RFC PATCH 2/2] ACPI / PPTT: cacheinfo: Label caches based on fw_token In-Reply-To: <20181010094637.GA13498@e107155-lin> References: <20181005150235.13846-1-james.morse@arm.com> <20181005150235.13846-3-james.morse@arm.com> <10e15b8d-c0c2-b73a-de31-f87ae0d86469@arm.com> <236eab50-e1d0-e2f5-fb69-95451c4ccc7e@codeaurora.org> <20181010094637.GA13498@e107155-lin> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 10/10/2018 3:46 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 12:34:51PM -0600, Jeffrey Hugo wrote: >> On 10/9/2018 11:58 AM, James Morse wrote: >>> >>> It can be set for a non-leaf entry, I assumed it would always be set for a leaf. >>> Is anyone doing this with a PPTT table? >> >> QDF2400 takes a strict interpretation of the spec, and does not set the flag >> for leaf nodes. I believe there are other implementations which do set the >> flag for leaf nodes. >> > > IIRC, based on the discussions when this was added, the ACPI Processor > ID *must be* valid for the lead nodes.T he flag bit corresponding > to that should be considered as don't care as it's always guaranteed > to be valid. Correct. -- Jeffrey Hugo Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies as an affiliate of Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.