From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Sudeep Holla Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] ACPI / PPTT: cacheinfo: Label caches based on fw_token Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2018 10:46:37 +0100 Message-ID: <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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <236eab50-e1d0-e2f5-fb69-95451c4ccc7e@codeaurora.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Jeffrey Hugo Cc: Vijaya Kumar K , Lorenzo Pieralisi , Tomasz Nowicki , Sudeep Holla , Jeremy Linton , linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, James Morse , Richard Ruigrok , Hanjun Guo , Xiongfeng Wang , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org 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. -- Regards, Sudeep