From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A3DBC48BD4 for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 15:20:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEBCD2133F for ; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 15:20:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1732201AbfFYPUr (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jun 2019 11:20:47 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:44006 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728199AbfFYPUr (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 Jun 2019 11:20:47 -0400 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 5BE622B; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 08:20:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from e107155-lin (e107155-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.196.42]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EF9493F718; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 08:20:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 16:20:38 +0100 From: Sudeep Holla To: Valentin Schneider Cc: Jeremy Linton , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net, lenb@kernel.org, Sudeep Holla Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] ACPI/PPTT: Add support for ACPI 6.3 thread flag Message-ID: <20190625152029.GA2308@e107155-lin> References: <20190614223158.49575-1-jeremy.linton@arm.com> <20190614223158.49575-2-jeremy.linton@arm.com> <667f95c0-5aa9-f460-a49a-e6dfefc027d8@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <667f95c0-5aa9-f460-a49a-e6dfefc027d8@arm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 01:34:51PM +0100, Valentin Schneider wrote: > Hi Jeremy, > > Few nits below. > > Also, I had a look at the other PPTT processor flags that were introduced > in 6.3, and the only other one being used is ACPI_LEAF_NODE in > acpi_pptt_leaf_node(). However that one already has a handle on the table > header, so the check_acpi_cpu_flag() isn't of much help there. > > I don't believe the other existing flags will benefit from the helper since > they are more about describing the PPTT tree, but I think it doesn't hurt > to keep it around for potential future flags. > > On 14/06/2019 23:31, Jeremy Linton wrote: > [...] > > @@ -517,6 +517,43 @@ static int find_acpi_cpu_topology_tag(unsigned int cpu, int level, int flag) > > return retval; > > } > > > > +/** > > + * check_acpi_cpu_flag() - Determine if CPU node has a flag set > > + * @cpu: Kernel logical CPU number > > + * @rev: The PPTT revision defining the flag > > + * @flag: The flag itself How about the "the processor structure flag being examined" ? > > + * > > + * Check the node representing a CPU for a given flag. > > + * > > + * Return: -ENOENT if the PPTT doesn't exist, the CPU cannot be found or > > + * the table revision isn't new enough. > > + * Otherwise returns flag value > > + */ > > Nit: strictly speaking we're not returning the flag value but its mask > applied to the flags field. I don't think anyone will care about getting > the actual flag value, but it should be made obvious in the doc: > I agree with that. I am also fine if you want to change the code to return 0 or 1 based on the flag value. It then aligns well with comment under acpi_pptt_cpu_is_thread. Either way, we just need consistency. -- Regards, Sudeep