[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54DE65C6.8000304@codeaurora.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 12:59:50 -0800
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
To: Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>
CC: Simon Horman <horms@...ge.net.au>,
Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Nicolas Pitre <nico@...aro.org>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@....com>,
SH-Linux <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: smp: Only expose /sys/.../cpuX/online if hotpluggable
On 02/13/15 12:54, Magnus Damm wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org> wrote:
>> On 02/13/15 12:20, Simon Horman wrote:
>>> Hi Stephen,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 10:06:39AM -0800, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/smp-r8a7779.c b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/smp-r8a7779.c
>>>> index 3f761f839043..b45206f93ddf 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/smp-r8a7779.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-shmobile/smp-r8a7779.c
>>>> @@ -124,19 +124,12 @@ static int r8a7779_cpu_kill(unsigned int cpu)
>>>>
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>> -
>>>> -static int r8a7779_cpu_disable(unsigned int cpu)
>>>> -{
>>>> - /* only CPU1->3 have power domains, do not allow hotplug of CPU0 */
>>>> - return cpu == 0 ? -EPERM : 0;
>>>> -}
>>>> #endif /* CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU */
>>>>
>>>> struct smp_operations r8a7779_smp_ops __initdata = {
>>>> .smp_prepare_cpus = r8a7779_smp_prepare_cpus,
>>>> .smp_boot_secondary = r8a7779_boot_secondary,
>>>> #ifdef CONFIG_HOTPLUG_CPU
>>>> - .cpu_disable = r8a7779_cpu_disable,
>>>> .cpu_die = shmobile_smp_scu_cpu_die,
>>>> .cpu_kill = r8a7779_cpu_kill,
>>>> #endif
>>> Its not clear to me why r8a7779_cpu_disable() has been
>>> removed rather than replaced by r8a7779_cpu_can_disable()
>> By default ARM's smp.c assumes that CPU0 can't be hotplugged. The
>> function is redundant. I guess I should have mentioned that in the
>> commit text.
> Thanks for your efforts. Can you please tell me where that limitation
> is located? I'm quite sure I've brought CPU cores up and down
> including CPU0, but maybe something is missing?
>
>
The assumption is made if there isn't a cpu_disable (now
cpu_can_disable) op. See platform_cpu_disable() in
arch/arm/kernel/smp.c. If there isn't such a limitation on a particular
platform, the platform needs to set the cpu_disable/cpu_can_disable op
and indicate that there isn't a limitation (by returning 1 for example).
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
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