Received: by 2002:a25:ab43:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id u61csp3862938ybi; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 07:40:51 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwDT1tWKv2/DmXsBHmYCnO1GXH6w9u/vnCujufEg4gWPrAm+OfCGkgGdOltlHoS99i8sQ1c X-Received: by 2002:a63:3710:: with SMTP id e16mr2987913pga.391.1560868851779; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 07:40:51 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1560868851; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=eDql9btzdl2vxtRUwlSuvMHYON2fYmyQDr+lgRf1Nt3XuKTfvjiCNFxu52QOUPxJZl rFyVj3mbSnch8y5SymoeOxpg136oLuiOCdyFAj3DGsWy0jeiLnty37yz2jN+fazoRGXs /70QE53JgU26DKTkTtjJCfXXXNx40ncbVEMnpPPEaJTBuQTVXFDBzqzOT/4Anl+3vKYc 4dcYC4P6vQh+i3IOJjOJ1RqyzFUHF+P9lRzuALHGO+SIT+hGJE0LLTr0yIMm/qdUgNzH Z8Tl/Otd4Jzc3sMP2lPE0fO15zJb3fkxEvjKM2lv9JBbcFVDflwrYlBBW0oqP8H6ut7c M+tw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:content-transfer-encoding :content-language:in-reply-to:mime-version:user-agent:date :message-id:from:references:cc:to:subject; bh=X7g0OQQxknUPdzxNppPMWFGhkC1k7mzJMOPpQE0bqLU=; b=HM5GRQALuVoYxMiHh390uVy/Avo+DAthR/lm3nGB1/A8b1h5k+sDNmHK02xPlyJd+Q 7bZpx7uprSujBV4VmCIqQhMyyKZT4gYZHWYnodsNudJY5fJeA7Zh455NgkisyM5lpDZg u1HtgATxtIL9xU9J6jsvNSpq5wa1as9A7k5is4axVroep3d3JrFPoy1nLWmSdzu81fhy keQF9wwMNkOPgsJnzlq8Mb9e26me9yWnEjqWdJ2cru5ugtd6NOxAvSjbhLYziXoO0vrW agc8T09BvgJppaKb2Kzi5e4hK4VxMvjZEoNNG0quolGXBQmT12h8O6p1SDL/rj3O7j4X Q7Bw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id g29si363002pgl.503.2019.06.18.07.40.34; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 07:40:51 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725919AbfFROk1 (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 18 Jun 2019 10:40:27 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.110.172]:44364 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729038AbfFROk1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Jun 2019 10:40:27 -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 50E012B; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 07:40:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.1.194.37] (e113632-lin.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.194.37]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3124C3F718; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 07:40:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] ACPI/PPTT: Add support for ACPI 6.3 thread flag To: Jeremy Linton , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Cc: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com, will.deacon@arm.com, rjw@rjwysocki.net, sudeep.holla@arm.com, lenb@kernel.org 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> From: Valentin Schneider Message-ID: <718438d0-8648-897a-83e8-801146a0af86@arm.com> Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 15:40:24 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <2d1b547f-f9ee-391c-c4f3-0232a08a86bc@arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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? > 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. [...]