[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.03.1308230049230.14472@syhkavp.arg>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 00:51:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>
To: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
cc: Russell King <rmk+kernel@....linux.org.uk>,
Javi Merino <javi.merino@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] irqchip: gic: Don't complain in gic_get_cpumask() if UP
system
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 08/22, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Aug 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >
> > > On 07/17, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > > On 07/17/13 15:53, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> On 07/17/13 15:34, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > > >>> On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>> On 07/12/13 05:10, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > > > >>>>> On 07/12, Javi Merino wrote:
> > > > >>>>>> I agree, we should drop the check. It's annoying in uniprocessors and
> > > > >>>>>> unlikely to be found in the real world unless your gic entry in the dt
> > > > >>>>>> is wrong.
> > > > >>> And that's a likely outcome in the real world.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>>>> Ok. How about this?
> > > > >>>> Any comments?
> > > > >>> What about this instead:
> > > > >> Unfortunately arm64 doesn't have SMP_ON_UP.
> > > > > And why does that matter?
> > > >
> > > > Because the gic driver is compiled on both arm and arm64? I suppose we
> > > > could define is_smp() to 1 on arm64 but its probably better to rely on
> > > > generic kernel things instead of arch specific functions.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >> It sounds like you preferred the first patch using num_possible_cpus()
> > > > > Probably, yes. I didn't follow the early conversation though.
> > > >
> > > > This was the first patch:
> > > >
> > > > ---8<----
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
> > > > index 19ceaa6..589c760 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
> > > > @@ -368,7 +368,7 @@ static u8 gic_get_cpumask(struct gic_chip_data *gic)
> > > > break;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > - if (!mask)
> > > > + if (!mask && num_possible_cpus() > 1)
> > > > pr_crit("GIC CPU mask not found - kernel will fail to boot.\n");
> > > >
> > > > return mask;
> > >
> > > Can one of these two patches be picked up?
> >
> > Sure. Just send it to RMK's patch system with my ACK.
> >
>
> I'm confused on that. MAINTAINERS says this patch should go
> through Thomas Gleixner's irq/core branch but it looks like only
> arm-soc has been taking patches for the current location.
Blah. OK then, just send it to Thomas.
Initially this code was written and committed by RMK which is why I
suggested you send him the fix.
Nicolas
--
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