Date:   Fri, 3 Mar 2023 19:04:52 +0100
From:   Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>
To:     Sunil V L <sunilvl@ventanamicro.com>
Cc:     linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
        Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
        Albert Ou <aou@eecs.berkeley.edu>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
        Len Brown <lenb@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Marc Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@linaro.org>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Anup Patel <apatel@ventanamicro.com>,
        Atish Patra <atishp@rivosinc.com>,
        'Conor Dooley ' <conor.dooley@microchip.com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 11/20] RISC-V: ACPI: Cache and retrieve the RINTC
 structure
Message-ID: <20230303180452.qzzjdwpgvqqxdqz5@orel>
References: <20230303133647.845095-1-sunilvl@ventanamicro.com>
 <20230303133647.845095-12-sunilvl@ventanamicro.com>
 <20230303160556.lezccmwa7ymymxws@orel>
 <ZAI1PbEfo1Gyco1n@sunil-laptop>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZAI1PbEfo1Gyco1n@sunil-laptop>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 11:28:21PM +0530, Sunil V L wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 05:05:56PM +0100, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 03, 2023 at 07:06:38PM +0530, Sunil V L wrote:
> > > RINTC structures in the MADT provide mapping between the hartid
> > > and the CPU. This is required many times even at run time like
> > > cpuinfo. So, instead of parsing the ACPI table every time, cache
> > > the RINTC structures and provide a function to get the correct
> > > RINTC structure for a given cpu.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Sunil V L <sunilvl@ventanamicro.com>
> > > Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >  arch/riscv/include/asm/acpi.h |  9 ++++++
> > >  arch/riscv/kernel/acpi.c      | 56 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > >  2 files changed, 65 insertions(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/riscv/include/asm/acpi.h
> > > index 111a8ed10af1..8be16c1ef7da 100644
> > > --- a/arch/riscv/include/asm/acpi.h
> > > +++ b/arch/riscv/include/asm/acpi.h
> > > @@ -61,6 +61,10 @@ static inline void arch_fix_phys_package_id(int num, u32 slot) { }
> > >  
> > >  int acpi_get_riscv_isa(struct acpi_table_header *table,
> > >  		       unsigned int cpu, const char **isa);
> > > +
> > > +struct acpi_madt_rintc *acpi_cpu_get_madt_rintc(int cpu);
> > > +
> > > +u32 get_acpi_id_for_cpu(int cpu);
> > >  #else
> > >  static inline int acpi_get_riscv_isa(struct acpi_table_header *table,
> > >  				     unsigned int cpu, const char **isa)
> > > @@ -68,6 +72,11 @@ static inline int acpi_get_riscv_isa(struct acpi_table_header *table,
> > >  	return -EINVAL;
> > >  }
> > >  
> > > +static inline u32 get_acpi_id_for_cpu(int cpu)
> > > +{
> > > +	return -1;
> > > +}
> > 
> > Why do we need this stub? I wouldn't expect non-ACPI code to need an ACPI
> > ID.
> > 
> > > +
> > >  #endif /* CONFIG_ACPI */
> > >  
> > >  #endif /*_ASM_ACPI_H*/
> > > diff --git a/arch/riscv/kernel/acpi.c b/arch/riscv/kernel/acpi.c
> > > index 81d448c41714..8b3d68d8225f 100644
> > > --- a/arch/riscv/kernel/acpi.c
> > > +++ b/arch/riscv/kernel/acpi.c
> > > @@ -24,6 +24,62 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_disabled);
> > >  int acpi_pci_disabled = 1;	/* skip ACPI PCI scan and IRQ initialization */
> > >  EXPORT_SYMBOL(acpi_pci_disabled);
> > >  
> > > +static struct acpi_madt_rintc cpu_madt_rintc[NR_CPUS];
> > > +
> > > +static int acpi_parse_madt_rintc(union acpi_subtable_headers *header, const unsigned long end)
> > > +{
> > > +	struct acpi_madt_rintc *rintc = (struct acpi_madt_rintc *)header;
> > > +	int cpuid;
> > > +
> > > +	if (!(rintc->flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED))
> > > +		return 0;
> > 
> > Why not cache the data even when its disabled? We also cache the flags so
> > we can always check later too.
> > 
> Okay, doesn't harm.
> 
> > > +
> > > +	cpuid = riscv_hartid_to_cpuid(rintc->hart_id);
> > > +	if (cpuid >= 0 && cpuid < NR_CPUS)
> > 
> > What does it mean for the above check to fail? Bad ACPI tables?
> > 
> This can happen when SMP is disabled but platform has more CPUs.

Ah yes, NR_CPUS can be too small for the platform. Maybe a comment
explaining that we ignore all additional cpus in the ACPI tables that
we can't manage with the kernel's limits would be helpful here.

Thanks,
drew