[PATCH v6 1/4] arm: introduce psci_smp_ops

[Nicolas Pitre]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Stefano Stabellini wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > 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).
> 
> You are right, it is confusing.
> By "keep the order as we discussed", do you mean merge the second patch
> into the first one, correct?

Correct.  And merge the commit log message too.


Nicolas