Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Tue, 5 May 2026 10:04:12 +0200 | | From | Greg Kroah-Hartman <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] cacheinfo: move cache_setup_acpi to header |
| |
On Tue, May 05, 2026 at 12:59:36AM -0700, Rosen Penev wrote: > cacheinfo.h already has handling for acpi_get_cache_info to be a static > inline ENOTSUPP function. Move it there as both functions are in the > same boat. > > Signed-off-by: Rosen Penev <rosenp@gmail.com> > --- > drivers/base/cacheinfo.c | 5 ----- > include/linux/cacheinfo.h | 8 +++++++- > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c b/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c > index 391ac5e3d2f5..ca7f266729d1 100644 > --- a/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c > +++ b/drivers/base/cacheinfo.c > @@ -366,11 +366,6 @@ static inline int cache_setup_of_node(unsigned int cpu) { return 0; } > int init_of_cache_level(unsigned int cpu) { return 0; } > #endif > > -int __weak cache_setup_acpi(unsigned int cpu) > -{ > - return -ENOTSUPP; > -} > - > unsigned int coherency_max_size; > > static int cache_setup_properties(unsigned int cpu) > diff --git a/include/linux/cacheinfo.h b/include/linux/cacheinfo.h > index c8f4f0a0b874..73ab4a6e3551 100644 > --- a/include/linux/cacheinfo.h > +++ b/include/linux/cacheinfo.h > @@ -86,7 +86,6 @@ int early_cache_level(unsigned int cpu); > int init_cache_level(unsigned int cpu); > int init_of_cache_level(unsigned int cpu); > int populate_cache_leaves(unsigned int cpu); > -int cache_setup_acpi(unsigned int cpu); > bool last_level_cache_is_valid(unsigned int cpu); > bool last_level_cache_is_shared(unsigned int cpu_x, unsigned int cpu_y); > int fetch_cache_info(unsigned int cpu); > @@ -106,7 +105,14 @@ int acpi_get_cache_info(unsigned int cpu, > { > return -ENOENT; > } > + > +static inline > +int cache_setup_acpi(unsigned int cpu) { > + return -ENOTSUPP; > +}; > + > #else > +int cache_setup_acpi(unsigned int cpu); > int acpi_get_cache_info(unsigned int cpu, > unsigned int *levels, unsigned int *split_levels); > #endif > -- > 2.54.0 > >
Didn't checkpatch complain about this change?
And why get rid of the weak symbol, this should break some arch builds, right?
thanks,
greg k-h
|  |