[PATCH 03/33] ACPI / PPTT: Add acpi_pptt_cache_v1_full to use pptt cache as one structure

[Ben Horgan]

Hi Jeremy,

On 11/10/25 17:00, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 11/7/25 6:34 AM, Ben Horgan wrote:
>> In actbl2.h, struct acpi_pptt_cache describes the fields in the original
>> cache type structure. In PPTT table version 3 a new field was added at
>> the
>> end, cache_id. This is described in struct acpi_pptt_cache_v1. Introduce
>> the new, acpi_pptt_cache_v1_full to contain both these structures. Update
>> the existing code to use this new struct. This simplifies the code,
>> removes
>> a non-standard use of ACPI_ADD_PTR and allows using the length in the
>> header to check if the cache_id is valid.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ben Horgan <ben.horgan at arm.com>
>> ---
>> Changes since v3:
>> New patch
>> ---
>>   drivers/acpi/pptt.c | 104 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
>>   1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 46 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pptt.c b/drivers/acpi/pptt.c
>> index 1027ca3566b1..1ed2099c0d1a 100644
>> --- a/drivers/acpi/pptt.c
>> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pptt.c
>> @@ -21,6 +21,11 @@
>>   #include <linux/cacheinfo.h>
>>   #include <acpi/processor.h>
>>   +struct acpi_pptt_cache_v1_full {
>> +    struct acpi_pptt_cache        f;
>> +    struct acpi_pptt_cache_v1    extra;
>> +} __packed;
> 
> This presumably won't match an acpia change, right? Those structures
> appear to repeat the fields in the newer structure definitions.
> 
> Maybe its best to keep this as close to an acpica change and do a quick
> patch posting for acpica to assure they are onboard with the eventual
> structure (IIRC it was fast a few years ago when I had a similar problem).
> 
> That would avoid a bunch of the churn here of adding the 'f'/'extra'
> dereferene which would then potentailly have to be reverted at some
> point when acpica corrects the original structure.
I've created a pull request on their github:
https://github.com/acpica/acpica/pull/1059. This extends 'struct
acpi_pptt_cache_v1' to include all the fields of the Cache Type
Structure. I think this could be acceptable as there are other commits
in the history which make breaking changes to structures in the headers.
Let's see what they say. I got an immediate reply in Chinese but was
just an out of office.

Thanks,

Ben