* [PATCH] cacheinfo: move cache_setup_acpi to header
@ 2026-05-05 7:59 Rosen Penev
2026-05-05 8:04 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Rosen Penev @ 2026-05-05 7:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: driver-core
Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman, Rafael J. Wysocki, Danilo Krummrich,
open list
cacheinfo.h already has handling for acpi_get_cache_info to be a static
inline ENOTSUPP function. Move it there as both functions are in the
same boat.
Signed-off-by: Rosen Penev <rosenp@gmail.com>
---
drivers/base/cacheinfo.c | 5 -----
include/linux/cacheinfo.h | 8 +++++++-
2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c b/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
index 391ac5e3d2f5..ca7f266729d1 100644
--- a/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
+++ b/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
@@ -366,11 +366,6 @@ static inline int cache_setup_of_node(unsigned int cpu) { return 0; }
int init_of_cache_level(unsigned int cpu) { return 0; }
#endif
-int __weak cache_setup_acpi(unsigned int cpu)
-{
- return -ENOTSUPP;
-}
-
unsigned int coherency_max_size;
static int cache_setup_properties(unsigned int cpu)
diff --git a/include/linux/cacheinfo.h b/include/linux/cacheinfo.h
index c8f4f0a0b874..73ab4a6e3551 100644
--- a/include/linux/cacheinfo.h
+++ b/include/linux/cacheinfo.h
@@ -86,7 +86,6 @@ int early_cache_level(unsigned int cpu);
int init_cache_level(unsigned int cpu);
int init_of_cache_level(unsigned int cpu);
int populate_cache_leaves(unsigned int cpu);
-int cache_setup_acpi(unsigned int cpu);
bool last_level_cache_is_valid(unsigned int cpu);
bool last_level_cache_is_shared(unsigned int cpu_x, unsigned int cpu_y);
int fetch_cache_info(unsigned int cpu);
@@ -106,7 +105,14 @@ int acpi_get_cache_info(unsigned int cpu,
{
return -ENOENT;
}
+
+static inline
+int cache_setup_acpi(unsigned int cpu) {
+ return -ENOTSUPP;
+};
+
#else
+int cache_setup_acpi(unsigned int cpu);
int acpi_get_cache_info(unsigned int cpu,
unsigned int *levels, unsigned int *split_levels);
#endif
--
2.54.0
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] cacheinfo: move cache_setup_acpi to header
2026-05-05 7:59 [PATCH] cacheinfo: move cache_setup_acpi to header Rosen Penev
@ 2026-05-05 8:04 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2026-05-05 8:08 ` Rosen Penev
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman @ 2026-05-05 8:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rosen Penev; +Cc: driver-core, Rafael J. Wysocki, Danilo Krummrich, open list
On Tue, May 05, 2026 at 12:59:36AM -0700, Rosen Penev wrote:
> cacheinfo.h already has handling for acpi_get_cache_info to be a static
> inline ENOTSUPP function. Move it there as both functions are in the
> same boat.
>
> Signed-off-by: Rosen Penev <rosenp@gmail.com>
> ---
> drivers/base/cacheinfo.c | 5 -----
> include/linux/cacheinfo.h | 8 +++++++-
> 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c b/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
> index 391ac5e3d2f5..ca7f266729d1 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
> @@ -366,11 +366,6 @@ static inline int cache_setup_of_node(unsigned int cpu) { return 0; }
> int init_of_cache_level(unsigned int cpu) { return 0; }
> #endif
>
> -int __weak cache_setup_acpi(unsigned int cpu)
> -{
> - return -ENOTSUPP;
> -}
> -
> unsigned int coherency_max_size;
>
> static int cache_setup_properties(unsigned int cpu)
> diff --git a/include/linux/cacheinfo.h b/include/linux/cacheinfo.h
> index c8f4f0a0b874..73ab4a6e3551 100644
> --- a/include/linux/cacheinfo.h
> +++ b/include/linux/cacheinfo.h
> @@ -86,7 +86,6 @@ int early_cache_level(unsigned int cpu);
> int init_cache_level(unsigned int cpu);
> int init_of_cache_level(unsigned int cpu);
> int populate_cache_leaves(unsigned int cpu);
> -int cache_setup_acpi(unsigned int cpu);
> bool last_level_cache_is_valid(unsigned int cpu);
> bool last_level_cache_is_shared(unsigned int cpu_x, unsigned int cpu_y);
> int fetch_cache_info(unsigned int cpu);
> @@ -106,7 +105,14 @@ int acpi_get_cache_info(unsigned int cpu,
> {
> return -ENOENT;
> }
> +
> +static inline
> +int cache_setup_acpi(unsigned int cpu) {
> + return -ENOTSUPP;
> +};
> +
> #else
> +int cache_setup_acpi(unsigned int cpu);
> int acpi_get_cache_info(unsigned int cpu,
> unsigned int *levels, unsigned int *split_levels);
> #endif
> --
> 2.54.0
>
>
Didn't checkpatch complain about this change?
And why get rid of the weak symbol, this should break some arch builds,
right?
thanks,
greg k-h
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] cacheinfo: move cache_setup_acpi to header
2026-05-05 8:04 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
@ 2026-05-05 8:08 ` Rosen Penev
2026-05-05 8:35 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Rosen Penev @ 2026-05-05 8:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman
Cc: driver-core, Rafael J. Wysocki, Danilo Krummrich, open list
On Tue, May 5, 2026 at 1:04 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 05, 2026 at 12:59:36AM -0700, Rosen Penev wrote:
> > cacheinfo.h already has handling for acpi_get_cache_info to be a static
> > inline ENOTSUPP function. Move it there as both functions are in the
> > same boat.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Rosen Penev <rosenp@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > drivers/base/cacheinfo.c | 5 -----
> > include/linux/cacheinfo.h | 8 +++++++-
> > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c b/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
> > index 391ac5e3d2f5..ca7f266729d1 100644
> > --- a/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
> > +++ b/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
> > @@ -366,11 +366,6 @@ static inline int cache_setup_of_node(unsigned int cpu) { return 0; }
> > int init_of_cache_level(unsigned int cpu) { return 0; }
> > #endif
> >
> > -int __weak cache_setup_acpi(unsigned int cpu)
> > -{
> > - return -ENOTSUPP;
> > -}
> > -
> > unsigned int coherency_max_size;
> >
> > static int cache_setup_properties(unsigned int cpu)
> > diff --git a/include/linux/cacheinfo.h b/include/linux/cacheinfo.h
> > index c8f4f0a0b874..73ab4a6e3551 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/cacheinfo.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/cacheinfo.h
> > @@ -86,7 +86,6 @@ int early_cache_level(unsigned int cpu);
> > int init_cache_level(unsigned int cpu);
> > int init_of_cache_level(unsigned int cpu);
> > int populate_cache_leaves(unsigned int cpu);
> > -int cache_setup_acpi(unsigned int cpu);
> > bool last_level_cache_is_valid(unsigned int cpu);
> > bool last_level_cache_is_shared(unsigned int cpu_x, unsigned int cpu_y);
> > int fetch_cache_info(unsigned int cpu);
> > @@ -106,7 +105,14 @@ int acpi_get_cache_info(unsigned int cpu,
> > {
> > return -ENOENT;
> > }
> > +
> > +static inline
> > +int cache_setup_acpi(unsigned int cpu) {
> > + return -ENOTSUPP;
> > +};
> > +
> > #else
> > +int cache_setup_acpi(unsigned int cpu);
> > int acpi_get_cache_info(unsigned int cpu,
> > unsigned int *levels, unsigned int *split_levels);
> > #endif
> > --
> > 2.54.0
> >
> >
>
> Didn't checkpatch complain about this change?
Hrm looks like it. I just matched the style of surrounding code.
Not sure about this though:
WARNING: ENOTSUPP is not a SUSV4 error code, prefer EOPNOTSUPP
>
> And why get rid of the weak symbol, this should break some arch builds,
> right?
The contrary. Fixes compilation with
make LLVM=1 ARCH=mips
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] cacheinfo: move cache_setup_acpi to header
2026-05-05 8:08 ` Rosen Penev
@ 2026-05-05 8:35 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman @ 2026-05-05 8:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Rosen Penev; +Cc: driver-core, Rafael J. Wysocki, Danilo Krummrich, open list
On Tue, May 05, 2026 at 01:08:04AM -0700, Rosen Penev wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2026 at 1:04 AM Greg Kroah-Hartman
> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, May 05, 2026 at 12:59:36AM -0700, Rosen Penev wrote:
> > > cacheinfo.h already has handling for acpi_get_cache_info to be a static
> > > inline ENOTSUPP function. Move it there as both functions are in the
> > > same boat.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Rosen Penev <rosenp@gmail.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/base/cacheinfo.c | 5 -----
> > > include/linux/cacheinfo.h | 8 +++++++-
> > > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c b/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
> > > index 391ac5e3d2f5..ca7f266729d1 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c
> > > @@ -366,11 +366,6 @@ static inline int cache_setup_of_node(unsigned int cpu) { return 0; }
> > > int init_of_cache_level(unsigned int cpu) { return 0; }
> > > #endif
> > >
> > > -int __weak cache_setup_acpi(unsigned int cpu)
> > > -{
> > > - return -ENOTSUPP;
> > > -}
> > > -
> > > unsigned int coherency_max_size;
> > >
> > > static int cache_setup_properties(unsigned int cpu)
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/cacheinfo.h b/include/linux/cacheinfo.h
> > > index c8f4f0a0b874..73ab4a6e3551 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/cacheinfo.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/cacheinfo.h
> > > @@ -86,7 +86,6 @@ int early_cache_level(unsigned int cpu);
> > > int init_cache_level(unsigned int cpu);
> > > int init_of_cache_level(unsigned int cpu);
> > > int populate_cache_leaves(unsigned int cpu);
> > > -int cache_setup_acpi(unsigned int cpu);
> > > bool last_level_cache_is_valid(unsigned int cpu);
> > > bool last_level_cache_is_shared(unsigned int cpu_x, unsigned int cpu_y);
> > > int fetch_cache_info(unsigned int cpu);
> > > @@ -106,7 +105,14 @@ int acpi_get_cache_info(unsigned int cpu,
> > > {
> > > return -ENOENT;
> > > }
> > > +
> > > +static inline
> > > +int cache_setup_acpi(unsigned int cpu) {
> > > + return -ENOTSUPP;
> > > +};
> > > +
> > > #else
> > > +int cache_setup_acpi(unsigned int cpu);
> > > int acpi_get_cache_info(unsigned int cpu,
> > > unsigned int *levels, unsigned int *split_levels);
> > > #endif
> > > --
> > > 2.54.0
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Didn't checkpatch complain about this change?
> Hrm looks like it. I just matched the style of surrounding code.
Nope, look at the style of the inline function just above the one you
added. You used a totally different (i.e. not kernel) style.
> Not sure about this though:
> WARNING: ENOTSUPP is not a SUSV4 error code, prefer EOPNOTSUPP
That's not the issue here.
> > And why get rid of the weak symbol, this should break some arch builds,
> > right?
> The contrary. Fixes compilation with
>
> make LLVM=1 ARCH=mips
So what commit caused this to break? Is this a new issue or something
that has always been present?
thanks,
greg k-h
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2026-05-05 8:35 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2026-05-05 7:59 [PATCH] cacheinfo: move cache_setup_acpi to header Rosen Penev
2026-05-05 8:04 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
2026-05-05 8:08 ` Rosen Penev
2026-05-05 8:35 ` Greg Kroah-Hartman
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox