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=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 100EAC31E5B for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 17:23:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEA9B214AF for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 17:23:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729435AbfFRRXh (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Jun 2019 13:23:37 -0400 Received: from szxga06-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.32]:57284 "EHLO huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729325AbfFRRXh (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Jun 2019 13:23:37 -0400 Received: from DGGEMS405-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.58]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id BB44A547BFFE83A7EBBF; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 01:23:34 +0800 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (10.210.170.177) by DGGEMS405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.205) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.439.0; Wed, 19 Jun 2019 01:23:32 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] ACPI/PPTT: Add support for ACPI 6.3 thread flag To: Valentin Schneider , Jeremy Linton , References: <20190614223158.49575-1-jeremy.linton@arm.com> <20190614223158.49575-2-jeremy.linton@arm.com> <667f95c0-5aa9-f460-a49a-e6dfefc027d8@arm.com> <2d1b547f-f9ee-391c-c4f3-0232a08a86bc@arm.com> <718438d0-8648-897a-83e8-801146a0af86@arm.com> CC: , , , , , , From: John Garry Message-ID: Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 18:23:25 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <718438d0-8648-897a-83e8-801146a0af86@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.210.170.177] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org On 18/06/2019 15:40, Valentin Schneider wrote: > On 18/06/2019 15:21, Jeremy Linton wrote: > [...] >>>> + * 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: >> >> Or I clarify the code to actually do what the comments says. Maybe that is what John G was also pointing out too? >> No, I was just saying that the kernel topology can be broken without this series. > > Mmm I didn't find any reply from John regarding this in v1, but I wouldn't > mind either way, as long as the doc & code are aligned. > BTW, to me, function acpi_pptt_cpu_is_thread() seems to try to do too much, i.e. check if the PPTT is new enough to support the thread flag and also check if it is set for a specific cpu. I'd consider separate functions here. thanks, John > [...] > > . >