[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201303261458.55183.arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 14:58:54 +0000
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>
Cc: xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, konrad.wilk@...cle.com,
Ian.Campbell@...rix.com, will.deacon@....com, marc.zyngier@....com,
linux@....linux.org.uk, nico@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] [RFC] arm: use PSCI if available
On Tuesday 26 March 2013, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> Check for the presence of PSCI before setting smp_ops, use PSCI if it is
> available.
>
> This is useful because at least when running on Xen it's possible to have a
> PSCI node for example on a Versatile Express or an Exynos5 machine. In these
> cases the PSCI SMP calls should be the ones to be called.
>
> Remove virt_smp_ops and platsmp.c from mach-virt because they aren't needed
> anymore.
Very nice, I had a similar idea but had not gotten around to write a patch.
This fits in nicely with my plans to make all fields of machine_desc optional.
> void __init smp_set_ops(struct smp_operations *ops)
> {
> - if (ops)
> + int rc = -ENODEV;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARM_PSCI
> + rc = psci_init(&smp_ops);
> +#endif
> + if (rc && ops)
> smp_ops = *ops;
> };
Could you move this into the caller, i.e. setup_arch() so we call smp_set_ops
either for psci_smp_ops or for machine_desc->smp?
Arnd
--
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