[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56547CC1.6000009@dev.rtsoft.ru>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2015 18:05:37 +0300
From: Nikita Yushchenko <nyushchenko@....rtsoft.ru>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
CC: Vladimir Murzin <vladimir.murzin@....com>,
kuznetsovg@....rtsoft.ru, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>,
Mason <slash.tmp@...e.fr>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Paul Kocialkowski <contact@...lk.fr>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [RFC/PATCH] arm: do not skip SMP init calls on SMP_ON_UP case
> I'm still trying to understand what is going on, and my printk()s show
> that this is not entirely true.
>
> When smp_init() is entered on mainline om imx6s, cpu_possible_mask and
> cpu_present_mask both contain two cpus. These get initialized in
> arm_dt_init_cpu_maps() and stay unmodified since then.
>
> But cpu_online() returns 1 for cpu0 and 0 from cpu1 - thus it is
> cpu_online() check, not possible_mask or present_mask, that prevents
> cpu1 initialization attempt.
Sorry was too quick to type.
cpu_online(0) is true and cpu_online(1) is false.
It is natural, since cpu0 is already running.
Thus cpu_up(1) is entered!
--
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