[PATCH v6 1/4] arm: introduce psci_smp_ops
Nicolas Pitre
nicolas.pitre at linaro.org
Thu Apr 18 12:35:57 EDT 2013
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 02:11:32PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > + psci_init();
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > > if (is_smp()) {
> > > - smp_set_ops(mdesc->smp);
> > > + if (mdesc->smp)
> > > + smp_set_ops(mdesc->smp);
> > > + else if (psci_smp_available())
> > > + smp_set_ops(&psci_smp_ops);
> >
> > So, I have a vague recollection that the ordering of the above got discussed
> > but I can't find it amongst the 21k of messages so far this year.
> >
> > The above looks weird to me. Surely this should be:
> >
> > if (psci_smp_available())
> > smp_set_ops(&psci_smp_ops);
> > else if (mdesc->smp)
> > smp_set_ops(mdesc->ops);
> >
> > This means that if PSCI is available, and provides a set of operations,
> > we override whatever the platform has statically provided.
> >
> > Remember, we're trying to move away from using "mdesc"s for platform
> > stuff, relying on things like DT and such like. We really should not
> > be going for mdesc-overriding-newstuff but newstuff-overriding-mdesc.
>
> That's correct, in fact if you look at the next patch you'll see that it
> changes the order.
>
> I introduced the mechanism first and changed the priority later - it
> should help bisectability.
> I can fold the two patches into one if you prefer.
Please let's keep the order as we discussed. Otherwise this is just too
confusing (Russell's comment is a good example of that).
Nicolas
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list