ACPI / processor: don't print errors for processorIDs == 0xff

ACPI / processor: don't print errors for processorIDs == 0xff

BugLink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1848046
[ Upstream commit 2c2b005f549544c13ef4cfb0e4842949066889bc ]

Some platforms define their processors in this manner:
    Device (SCK0)
    {
	Name (_HID, "ACPI0004" /* Module Device */)  // _HID: Hardware ID
	Name (_UID, "CPUSCK0")  // _UID: Unique ID
	Processor (CP00, 0x00, 0x00000410, 0x06){}
	Processor (CP01, 0x02, 0x00000410, 0x06){}
	Processor (CP02, 0x04, 0x00000410, 0x06){}
	Processor (CP03, 0x06, 0x00000410, 0x06){}
	Processor (CP04, 0x01, 0x00000410, 0x06){}
	Processor (CP05, 0x03, 0x00000410, 0x06){}
	Processor (CP06, 0x05, 0x00000410, 0x06){}
	Processor (CP07, 0x07, 0x00000410, 0x06){}
	Processor (CP08, 0xFF, 0x00000410, 0x06){}
	Processor (CP09, 0xFF, 0x00000410, 0x06){}
	Processor (CP0A, 0xFF, 0x00000410, 0x06){}
	Processor (CP0B, 0xFF, 0x00000410, 0x06){}
...

The processors marked as 0xff are invalid, there are only 8 of them in
this case.

So do not print an error on ids == 0xff, just print an info message.
Actually, we could return ENODEV even on the first CPU with ID 0xff, but
ACPI spec does not forbid the 0xff value to be a processor ID. Given
0xff could be a correct one, we would break working systems if we
returned ENODEV.

Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Pisati <paolo.pisati@canonical.com>
Signed-off-by: Kleber Sacilotto de Souza <kleber.souza@canonical.com>