Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Cc:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Lorenzo.Pieralisi@arm.com,
        hanjun.guo@linaro.org, rjw@rjwysocki.net, Will.Deacon@arm.com,
        Catalin.Marinas@arm.com, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        Mark.Rutland@arm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, wangxiongfeng2@huawei.com,
        vkilari@codeaurora.org, ahs3@redhat.com, Dietmar.Eggemann@arm.com,
        Morten.Rasmussen@arm.com, palmer@sifive.com, lenb@kernel.org,
        john.garry@huawei.com, austinwc@codeaurora.org,
        tnowicki@caviumnetworks.com, jhugo@qti.qualcomm.com,
        timur@qti.qualcomm.com, ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 07/13] drivers: base cacheinfo: Add support for ACPI
 based firmware tables
To:     Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
References: <20180425233121.13270-1-jeremy.linton@arm.com>
 <20180425233121.13270-8-jeremy.linton@arm.com>
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>
Organization: ARM
Message-ID: <c3306746-aacd-5ed8-95d6-a3186ec2089f@arm.com>
Date:   Thu, 26 Apr 2018 12:05:56 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20180425233121.13270-8-jeremy.linton@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


On 26/04/18 00:31, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> Call ACPI cache parsing routines from base cacheinfo code if ACPI
> is enable. Also stub out cache_setup_acpi() so that individual
> architectures can enable ACPI topology parsing.
> 

[...]

> +#ifndef CONFIG_ACPI
> +static inline int acpi_find_last_cache_level(unsigned int cpu)
> +{
> +	/* ACPI kernels should be built with PPTT support */

This sounds incorrect for x86. But I understand why you have it there.
Does it makes sense to change above to .. ?

#if !defined(CONFIG_ACPI) || (defined(CONFIG_ACPI) && !(CONFIG_ACPI_PPTT))

-- 
Regards,
Sudeep