[PATCH RFC v4 02/15] ACPI: processor: Register all CPUs from acpi_processor_get_info()

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 02:50:05PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> If we get rid of this catch all, solution would be to move the
> !acpi_disabled check into the arm64 version of arch_cpu_register()
> because we would only want the delayed registration path to be
> used on ACPI cases where the question of CPU availability can't
> yet be resolved.

Aren't we then needing two arch_register_cpu() implementations?
I'm assuming that you're suggesting that the !acpi_disabled, then
do nothing check is moved into arch_register_cpu() - or to put it
another way, arch_register_cpu() does nothing if ACPI is enabled.

If arch_register_cpu() does nothing if ACPI is enabled, how do
CPUs get registered (and sysfs files get created to control them)
on ACPI systems? ACPI wouldn't be able to call arch_register_cpu(),
so I suspect you'll need an ACPI-specific version of this function.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!