linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 3/9] arm64/acpi: Create arch specific cpu to acpi id helper

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20171120171429.GC31395@e107155-lin>
Date:   Mon, 20 Nov 2017 17:14:29 +0000
From:   Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
To:     Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>
Cc:     linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        hanjun.guo@...aro.org, lorenzo.pieralisi@....com,
        rjw@...ysocki.net, will.deacon@....com, catalin.marinas@....com,
        gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, viresh.kumar@...aro.org,
        mark.rutland@....com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, jhugo@...eaurora.org,
        wangxiongfeng2@...wei.com, Jonathan.Zhang@...ium.com,
        ahs3@...hat.com, Jayachandran.Nair@...ium.com,
        austinwc@...eaurora.org, lenb@...nel.org, robert.moore@...el.com,
        lv.zheng@...el.com, devel@...ica.org,
        Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@....com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 3/9] arm64/acpi: Create arch specific cpu to acpi id
 helper

On Mon, Nov 20, 2017 at 11:09:47AM -0600, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 11/20/2017 11:06 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> >On Thu, Nov 09, 2017 at 03:03:05PM -0600, Jeremy Linton wrote:
> >>Its helpful to be able to lookup the acpi_processor_id
> >>associated with a logical cpu. Provide an arm64
> >>helper to do this.
> >>
> >>Signed-off-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@....com>
> >>---
> >>  arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h | 4 ++++
> >>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> >>
> >>diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
> >>index 59cca1d6ec54..408e7989d3a2 100644
> >>--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
> >>+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/acpi.h
> >>@@ -86,6 +86,10 @@ static inline bool acpi_has_cpu_in_madt(void)
> >>  }
> >>  struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *acpi_cpu_get_madt_gicc(int cpu);
> >>+static inline u32 get_acpi_id_for_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
> >>+{
> >>+	return	acpi_cpu_get_madt_gicc(cpu)->uid;
> >>+}
> >
> >If I followed the series correctly, this function is used in 2/9 already.
> >So this needs to be moved down in the series to avoid build failure during
> >bisection.
> 
> I don't believe there is a bisection failure here because the code using
> this routine is not yet being compiled until the 4/9.
> 

OK, I see. It's good to have definition ready before you use generally,
up to you.

--
Regards,
Sudeep