Re: new cpu iteration code...

[Rob Herring <robherring2-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>]

On 09/20/2013 11:44 AM, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:
> On 19/09/13 18:38, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Rob Herring <robherring2-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>
>> Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2013 08:26:04 -0500
>>
>>> The simple solution here is to just remove the warning. It doesn't
>>> appear to me that sparc ever sets the cpu device of_node pointer.
>>
>> Why wouldn't I want sparc to have this functionality now that the
>> code is generically available.
>>
> Makes sense, but as you mentioned before we need to match other property
> names namely "upa-portid", "portid" or "cpuid" for cpu physical id right
> ? Are all these 32-bit values ?
> 
>>> Are there any cases on where sparc does have a /cpus node? If so we'd
>>> need to make of_get_cpu_node a weak function or depend on a kconfig option.
>>
>> I already gave a solution to this problem, make the loop iterator be:
>>
>> 	for_each_node_by_type(dp, "cpu")
>>
> 
> Does it make sense use this only when /cpus is not found ?
> IMHO as the number of node in DT increases(which is the case on ARM
> platforms) parsing entire tree may be expensive(which can be avoided in
> case /cpus is found)

Can't you simply do something like this for the search:

	cpus = of_find_node_by_path("/cpus");
	if (!cpus && IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SPARC))
		cpus = of_find_node_by_path("/");
	if (!cpus) {
		pr_warn("Missing cpus node, bailing out\n");
		return NULL;
	}

	for_each_child_of_node(cpus, cpun) {

Rob

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html