[PATCH 1/3] arm64: topology: Add support for topology DT bindings
Lorenzo Pieralisi
lorenzo.pieralisi at arm.com
Wed Mar 19 12:04:14 EDT 2014
Hi Mark,
sorry for the delay in reviewing.
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 08:59:33AM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
[...]
> +static int __init parse_cluster(struct device_node *cluster, int depth)
> +{
> + char name[10];
> + bool leaf = true;
> + bool has_cores = false;
> + struct device_node *c;
> + static int __initdata cluster_id;
> + int core_id = 0;
> + int i, ret;
> +
> + /*
> + * First check for child clusters; we currently ignore any
> + * information about the nesting of clusters and present the
> + * scheduler with a flat list of them.
> + */
> + i = 0;
> + do {
> + snprintf(name, sizeof(name), "cluster%d", i);
> + c = of_get_child_by_name(cluster, name);
> + if (c) {
> + parse_cluster(c, depth + 1);
You should check (and propagate) the return value here, otherwise we miss
detection of bodged topology bindings and fail to reset the topology data.
> + leaf = false;
> + }
> + i++;
> + } while (c);
> +
> + /* Now check for cores */
> + i = 0;
> + do {
> + snprintf(name, sizeof(name), "core%d", i);
> + c = of_get_child_by_name(cluster, name);
> + if (c) {
> + has_cores = true;
> +
> + if (depth == 0)
> + pr_err("%s: cpu-map children should be clusters\n",
> + c->full_name);
> +
> + if (leaf) {
> + ret = parse_core(c, cluster_id, core_id++);
> + if (ret != 0) {
Should remove braces.
> + return ret;
> + }
> + } else {
> + pr_err("%s: Non-leaf cluster with core %s\n",
> + cluster->full_name, name);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
> + }
> + i++;
> + } while (c);
> +
> + if (leaf && !has_cores)
> + pr_warn("%s: empty cluster\n", cluster->full_name);
> +
> + if (leaf)
> + cluster_id++;
> +
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +static int __init parse_dt_topology(void)
> +{
> + struct device_node *cn;
> +
> + cn = of_find_node_by_path("/cpus");
> + if (!cn) {
> + pr_err("No CPU information found in DT\n");
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * When topology is provided cpu-map is essentially a root
> + * cluster with restricted subnodes.
> + */
> + cn = of_get_child_by_name(cn, "cpu-map");
> + if (!cn)
> + return 0;
> + return parse_cluster(cn, 0);
> +}
> +
> +#else
> +static inline int parse_dt_topology(void) { return 0; }
> +#endif
> +
> /*
> * cpu topology table
> */
> @@ -74,11 +225,7 @@ void store_cpu_topology(unsigned int cpuid)
> update_siblings_masks(cpuid);
> }
>
> -/*
> - * init_cpu_topology is called at boot when only one cpu is running
> - * which prevent simultaneous write access to cpu_topology array
> - */
> -void __init init_cpu_topology(void)
> +static void __init reset_cpu_topology(void)
> {
> unsigned int cpu;
>
> @@ -93,3 +240,18 @@ void __init init_cpu_topology(void)
> cpumask_clear(&cpu_topo->thread_sibling);
> }
> }
> +
> +/*
> + * init_cpu_topology is called at boot when only one cpu is running
> + * which prevent simultaneous write access to cpu_topology array
> + */
Comment is stale.
> +void __init init_cpu_topology(void)
> +{
> + int ret;
> +
> + reset_cpu_topology();
> +
> + ret = parse_dt_topology();
> + if (ret != 0)
> + reset_cpu_topology();
ret is unused so should be removed. You could remove the first reset call and
use static initialization for that, it is a matter of taste though.
A comment is in order, whatever approach you go for.
Thanks,
Lorenzo
More information about the linux-arm-kernel
mailing list