From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 709D82D46BC; Tue, 9 Sep 2025 10:07:08 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1757412431; cv=none; b=L/ZqVJP1LV/GHub81gvfd3jRSleVAaI0MvVwLm3ziZjbEdeS4MowajtFKPjGUZpEyCCZJb2aJdZM4iPWUJbHgr/eryw6Jck/o8Q0vxENom6pRILYW43cuNyW+BYlO61f57fuGrjkhcFlZDhmJTRq+4hAJZkCEgTqbWKObQjOmDc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1757412431; c=relaxed/simple; bh=/KbbwvQvwoDDtcfJnQaWn3NiqCRJWQONsBAd5RtWH88=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=WM7pl55cwm8HwDomgt/uHJ3xZiDJZzxDsPIj/l/C3TRd9/l+cgOI4GlwUkF90M9ltgCZ3ljvecLfxNkaNv38zd8ep5hikESsGI4zR9qKuLKndkNbO2m3sTjvS1H89q7knhhsjS1hVGp/++rBQnlIDXQ8phW3AopzjtN+7PRNQUs= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=217.140.110.172 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=arm.com Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4797113E; Tue, 9 Sep 2025 03:06:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e133380.arm.com (e133380.arm.com [10.1.197.68]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 36B533F66E; Tue, 9 Sep 2025 03:07:01 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2025 11:06:52 +0100 From: Dave Martin To: James Morse Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, devicetree@vger.kernel.org, D Scott Phillips OS , carl@os.amperecomputing.com, lcherian@marvell.com, bobo.shaobowang@huawei.com, tan.shaopeng@fujitsu.com, baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com, Jamie Iles , Xin Hao , peternewman@google.com, dfustini@baylibre.com, amitsinght@marvell.com, David Hildenbrand , Rex Nie , Koba Ko , Shanker Donthineni , fenghuay@nvidia.com, baisheng.gao@unisoc.com, Jonathan Cameron , Rob Herring , Rohit Mathew , Rafael Wysocki , Len Brown , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Hanjun Guo , Sudeep Holla , Krzysztof Kozlowski , Conor Dooley , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Danilo Krummrich Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/33] ACPI / PPTT: Stop acpi_count_levels() expecting callers to clear levels Message-ID: References: <20250822153048.2287-1-james.morse@arm.com> <20250822153048.2287-5-james.morse@arm.com> <1914b7f0-10e6-4cf4-ad53-5ae03c69964d@arm.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1914b7f0-10e6-4cf4-ad53-5ae03c69964d@arm.com> Hi James, On Thu, Aug 28, 2025 at 04:57:15PM +0100, James Morse wrote: > Hi Dave, > > On 27/08/2025 11:49, Dave Martin wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 03:29:45PM +0000, James Morse wrote: > >> acpi_count_levels() passes the number of levels back via a pointer argument. > >> It also passes this to acpi_find_cache_level() as the starting_level, and > >> preserves this value as it walks up the cpu_node tree counting the levels. > >> > >> This means the caller must initialise 'levels' due to acpi_count_levels() > >> internals. The only caller acpi_get_cache_info() happens to have already > >> initialised levels to zero, which acpi_count_levels() depends on to get the > >> correct result. > >> > >> Two results are passed back from acpi_count_levels(), unlike split_levels, > >> levels is not optional. > >> > >> Split these two results up. The mandatory 'levels' is always returned, > >> which hides the internal details from the caller, and avoids having > >> duplicated initialisation in all callers. split_levels remains an > >> optional argument passed back. > > > > Nit: I found all this a bit hard to follow. > > > > This seems to boil down to: > > > > --8<-- > > > > In acpi_count_levels(), the initial value of *levels passed by the > > caller is really an implementation detail of acpi_count_levels(), so it > > is unreasonable to expect the callers of this function to know what to > > pass in for this parameter. The only sensible initial value is 0, > > which is what the only upstream caller (acpi_get_cache_info()) passes. > > > > Use a local variable for the starting cache level in acpi_count_levels(), > > and pass the result back to the caller via the function return value. > > > > Gid rid of the levels parameter, which has no remaining purpose. > > > > Fix acpi_get_cache_info() to match. > > > > -->8-- > > I've taken this instead, OK [...] > >> @@ -731,7 +735,7 @@ int acpi_get_cache_info(unsigned int cpu, unsigned int *levels, > >> if (!cpu_node) > >> return -ENOENT; > >> > >> - acpi_count_levels(table, cpu_node, levels, split_levels); > >> + *levels = acpi_count_levels(table, cpu_node, split_levels); > >> > >> pr_debug("Cache Setup: last_level=%d split_levels=%d\n", > >> *levels, split_levels ? *split_levels : -1); > > > > Otherwise, looks reasonable to me. > > > > (But see my comments on the next patches re whether we really need this.) > > It was enough fun to debug that I'd like to save anyone else the trouble! Fair enough. Cheers ---Dave