x86/acpi: Ignore invalid x2APIC entries

Currently, the kernel enumerates the possible CPUs by parsing both ACPI
MADT Local APIC entries and x2APIC entries. So CPUs with "valid" APIC IDs,
even if they have duplicated APIC IDs in Local APIC and x2APIC, are always
enumerated.

Below is what ACPI MADT Local APIC and x2APIC describes on an
Ivebridge-EP system,

[02Ch 0044   1]                Subtable Type : 00 [Processor Local APIC]
[02Fh 0047   1]                Local Apic ID : 00
...
[164h 0356   1]                Subtable Type : 00 [Processor Local APIC]
[167h 0359   1]                Local Apic ID : 39
[16Ch 0364   1]                Subtable Type : 00 [Processor Local APIC]
[16Fh 0367   1]                Local Apic ID : FF
...
[3ECh 1004   1]                Subtable Type : 09 [Processor Local x2APIC]
[3F0h 1008   4]                Processor x2Apic ID : 00000000
...
[B5Ch 2908   1]                Subtable Type : 09 [Processor Local x2APIC]
[B60h 2912   4]                Processor x2Apic ID : 00000077

As a result, kernel shows "smpboot: Allowing 168 CPUs, 120 hotplug CPUs".
And this wastes significant amount of memory for the per-cpu data.
Plus this also breaks https://lore.kernel.org/all/87edm36qqb.ffs@tglx/,
because __max_logical_packages is over-estimated by the APIC IDs in
the x2APIC entries.

According to https://uefi.org/specs/ACPI/6.5/05_ACPI_Software_Programming_Model.html#processor-local-x2apic-structure

:

  "[Compatibility note] On some legacy OSes, Logical processors with APIC
   ID values less than 255 (whether in XAPIC or X2APIC mode) must use the
   Processor Local APIC structure to convey their APIC information to OSPM,
   and those processors must be declared in the DSDT using the Processor()
   keyword. Logical processors with APIC ID values 255 and greater must use
   the Processor Local x2APIC structure and be declared using the Device()
   keyword."

Therefore prevent the registration of x2APIC entries with an APIC ID less
than 255 if the local APIC table enumerates valid APIC IDs.

[ tglx: Simplify the logic ]

Signed-off-by: Zhang Rui <rui.zhang@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Tested-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230702162802.344176-1-rui.zhang@intel.com