Re: [PATCH] cacheinfo: move cache_setup_acpi to header

[Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

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