| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20101204084815.GA20969@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Date: Sat, 4 Dec 2010 08:48:15 +0000 From: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk> To: Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>, Srinidhi Kasagar <srinidhi.kasagar@...ricsson.com>, Jamie Iles <jamie.iles@...ochip.com>, Anton Vorontsov <avorontsov@...sta.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org, Colin Cross <ccross@...roid.com>, linux-tegra@...r.kernel.org, Uwe Kleine-König <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] ARM: SCU: Add common routines for secondary CPU bootup On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 06:01:50PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 05:38:24PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > > What if a platform, for what ever reason, wants to have 3 CPUs, > > numbered 0, 2, 3 ? That's the reason why the code which sets the > > possible and present maps isn't in the ARM core code - Eg, we don't > > know if a platform wants to keep CPU 1 in AMP mode to run some > > special software on it. > > > > I don't think it's worth it because I think trying to considate this > > is going to cripple the code structure in the future. > > I don't think this is particularly worth it either: As Catalin has pointed out: http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/message/20101202.162840.5465758c.en.html The SCU is part of the core, and if you consult the TRMs for the MPCore devices, it is actually different in ARM11 MPCore vs Cortex-A9 MPCore. Cortex-A15 doesn't have a MMIO addressable SCU at all. So, this is about as far as I want to go with stripping out the common code from the various platforms (this includes my previous SMP series): http://lists.arm.linux.org.uk/lurker/message/20101203.200746.31424430.en.html This results in a net reduction of 242 LOC, as shown in the following diffstat: arch/arm/include/asm/hardirq.h | 18 ++ arch/arm/include/asm/mach/irq.h | 2 +- arch/arm/include/asm/smp.h | 17 +- arch/arm/include/asm/smp_mpidr.h | 17 -- arch/arm/kernel/entry-armv.S | 2 +- arch/arm/kernel/fiq.c | 5 +- arch/arm/kernel/head.S | 39 +++-- arch/arm/kernel/irq.c | 23 ++- arch/arm/kernel/smp.c | 243 ++++++++++++++++------------- arch/arm/mach-msm/include/mach/smp.h | 4 +- arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-hotplug.c | 14 +-- arch/arm/mach-omap2/omap-smp.c | 66 ++------ arch/arm/mach-realview/hotplug.c | 18 +-- arch/arm/mach-realview/include/mach/smp.h | 5 +- arch/arm/mach-realview/platsmp.c | 95 +++--------- arch/arm/mach-s5pv310/hotplug.c | 18 +-- arch/arm/mach-s5pv310/include/mach/smp.h | 5 +- arch/arm/mach-s5pv310/platsmp.c | 46 +----- arch/arm/mach-tegra/hotplug.c | 18 +-- arch/arm/mach-tegra/include/mach/smp.h | 12 +-- arch/arm/mach-tegra/platsmp.c | 33 +--- arch/arm/mach-ux500/hotplug.c | 18 +-- arch/arm/mach-ux500/include/mach/smp.h | 5 +- arch/arm/mach-ux500/platsmp.c | 57 ++----- arch/arm/mach-vexpress/include/mach/smp.h | 5 +- arch/arm/mach-vexpress/platsmp.c | 54 ++----- arch/arm/plat-omap/include/plat/smp.h | 5 +- 27 files changed, 301 insertions(+), 543 deletions(-) Can someone also explain why OMAP uses different file naming from everyone else? It's annoying as (eg) arch/arm/*/platsmp.c for editing the platform SMP support files gets everyone except OMAP. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists