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;
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 smtp.codeaurora.org 86E5E602A7
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ACPI/PPTT: Handle architecturally unknown cache types
To:     Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@arm.com>,
        Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@arm.com>, rjw@rjwysocki.net,
        linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, vkilari@codeaurora.org
References: <1536694334-5811-1-git-send-email-jhugo@codeaurora.org>
 <f62f22a6-2dd8-f254-dbaf-b9e224099afd@arm.com>
 <e74f2208-ac0d-6c45-8ddb-5b77d6a42fef@codeaurora.org>
 <c34452c2-d1e8-19d8-45c1-b48ecf14bbd7@arm.com>
 <98e2e6fa-7256-b5ac-7d2e-42c858c6e57c@codeaurora.org>
 <af280111-5dec-a4e1-7dfd-20f38a9fd8ab@arm.com>
 <2873c62f-1bf9-5aa0-b3a2-07980ef61d35@arm.com>
From:   Jeffrey Hugo <jhugo@codeaurora.org>
Message-ID: <c835027a-9e3e-221b-01da-0e1930c4e58f@codeaurora.org>
Date:   Wed, 12 Sep 2018 09:57:14 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/52.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2873c62f-1bf9-5aa0-b3a2-07980ef61d35@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On 9/12/2018 9:38 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> 
> 
> On 12/09/18 16:27, Sudeep Holla wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 12/09/18 15:41, Jeffrey Hugo wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>>>
>>> Correct.  However, what if you have a NOCACHE (not architecturally
>>> specified), that is fully described in PPTT, as a non-unified cache
>>> (data only)?  Unlikely?  Maybe.  Still seem possible though, therefore I
>>> feel this assumption is suspect.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, we have other issues if the architecturally not specified cache is
>> not unified irrespective of what PPTT says. So we may need to review and
>> see if that assumption is removed everywhere.
>>
>> Until then why can't a simple change fix the issue you have:
>>
>> -->8
>>
>> diff --git i/drivers/acpi/pptt.c w/drivers/acpi/pptt.c
>> index d1e26cb599bf..f74131201f5e 100644
>> --- i/drivers/acpi/pptt.c
>> +++ w/drivers/acpi/pptt.c
>> @@ -406,7 +406,8 @@ static void update_cache_properties(struct cacheinfo
>> *this_leaf,
>>           * update the cache type as well.
>>           */
>>          if (this_leaf->type == CACHE_TYPE_NOCACHE &&
>> -           valid_flags == PPTT_CHECKED_ATTRIBUTES)
>> +           (valid_flags == PPTT_CHECKED_ATTRIBUTES ||
>> +            found_cache->flags & ACPI_PPTT_CACHE_TYPE_VALID))
> 
> Looking at this again, if we are supporting just presence of cache type
> and size(may be), then we can drop the whole valid_flags thing here.
> 
>>                  this_leaf->type = CACHE_TYPE_UNIFIED;
>>   }
>>

Yes, this change fixes my usecase.  I think it invalidates the comment, 
and really, the comment should probably mention that we assume unified 
type because there are other issues in supporting architecturally not 
specified inst/data only caches.

Do you want a V2 with this?  If so, do you want the fixes tag removed 
since you seem to view this as not a bug?

I don't think I clearly understand the purpose of the valid flags, 
therefore I feel as though I'm not sure if it can be dropped or not.  Is 
it fair to say that what the valid flags is accomplishing is identifying 
if we have a sufficient level of information to support this cache?  If 
not, then should the cacheinfo driver not expose any sysfs information 
about the cache?

-- 
Jeffrey Hugo
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies as an affiliate of Qualcomm 
Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the
Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.