[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <53DA2110.8060000@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2014 18:57:20 +0800
From: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>
To: Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>
CC: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@...aro.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
Sudeep Holla <Sudeep.Holla@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Jason Cooper <jason@...edaemon.net>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Mark Brown <broonie@...aro.org>,
Robert Richter <rric@...nel.org>,
Lv Zheng <lv.zheng@...el.com>,
Robert Moore <robert.moore@...el.com>,
Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
Liviu Dudau <Liviu.Dudau@....com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Charles.Garcia-Tobin@....com, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linaro-acpi-private@...aro.org,
Tomasz Nowicki <tomasz.nowicki@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 10/19] ARM64 / ACPI: Get the enable method for SMP initialization
in ACPI way
On 2014-7-31 14:54, Olof Johansson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 09:00:16PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>> +/*
>> + * In ACPI mode, the cpu possible map was enumerated before SMP
>> + * initialization when MADT table was parsed, so we can get the
>> + * possible map here to initialize CPUs.
>> + */
>
> The DT smp init will warn if the kernel has been build with too low NR_CPUS.
> Does the ACPI core already warn, or did that go missing with this separate code
> path?
ACPI code will warn, it is in PATCH 07/19,
+ if (enabled_cpus >= NR_CPUS) {
+ pr_warn("NR_CPUS limit of %d reached, Processor %d/0x%llx ignored.\n",
+ NR_CPUS, total_cpus, mpidr);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
>
>> +static void __init acpi_smp_init_cpus(void)
>> +{
>> + int cpu;
>> +
>> + for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
>> + if (cpu_acpi_read_ops(cpu) != 0)
>> + continue;
>> +
>> + cpu_ops[cpu]->cpu_init(NULL, cpu);
>> + }
>> +}
>> +
>> +void __init smp_init_cpus(void)
>> +{
>> + if (acpi_disabled)
>> + of_smp_init_cpus();
>> + else
>> + acpi_smp_init_cpus();
>
> I'm liking these deeply split code paths less and less every time I see
> them. :(
>
> I would prefer to set up shared state in separate functions, but keep the
> control flow the same. Right now you're splitting it completely.
>
> I.e. split data setup between the two, but do the loop calling cpu_init()
> the same way. (Yes, that will require you to refactor the DT code path
> a bit too...)
OK, I will dive into the code and figure out if I can fix that as you
suggested, thanks for your comments :)
Best Regards
Hanjun
--
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