[PATCH v5 03/34] ACPI / PPTT: Add acpi_pptt_cache_v1_full to use pptt cache as one structure

[Fenghua Yu]

Hi, Ben,

On 11/17/25 08:59, Ben Horgan wrote:
> In actbl2.h, 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 acpi_pptt_cache_v1 but rather than
> including all v1 fields it just includes this one.
> 
> In lieu of this being fixed in acpica, introduce acpi_pptt_cache_v1_full to
> contain all the fields of the Cache Type Structure . Update the existing
> code to use this new struct. This simplifies the code and removes a
> non-standard use of ACPI_ADD_PTR.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ben Horgan <ben.horgan at arm.com>
> ---
> I have opened a pull request to acpica to update acpi_pptt_cache_v1 to
> include all fields. https://github.com/acpica/acpica/pull/1059
> 
> Change since v4:
> Use fields directly in acpi_pptt_cache_v1_full
> Delay the casting
> 
> Changes since v3:
> New patch
> ---
>   drivers/acpi/pptt.c | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>   1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/acpi/pptt.c b/drivers/acpi/pptt.c
> index 2856254e29d7..53fde9bd8140 100644
> --- a/drivers/acpi/pptt.c
> +++ b/drivers/acpi/pptt.c
> @@ -21,6 +21,25 @@
>   #include <linux/cacheinfo.h>
>   #include <acpi/processor.h>
>   
> +/*
> + * The acpi_pptt_cache_v1 in actbl2.h, which is imported from acpica,
> + * only contains the cache_id field rather than all the fields of the
> + * Cache Type Structure. Use this alternative structure until it is
> + * resolved in acpica.
> + */
> +struct acpi_pptt_cache_v1_full {
> +	struct acpi_subtable_header header;
> +	u16 reserved;
> +	u32 flags;
> +	u32 next_level_of_cache;
> +	u32 size;
> +	u32 number_of_sets;
> +	u8 associativity;
> +	u8 attributes;
> +	u16 line_size;
> +	u32 cache_id;
> +};

Should "__packed" be added to this table?

Should this table be defined in include/acpi/actbl2.h? Seems defining 
the two cache tables separately in two places are not natural?

Thanks.

-Fenghua