From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 14/21] ACPI / processor: Make it possible to get CPU
 hardware ID via GICC
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 2015 14:51:52 +0800
Message-ID: <54F94E88.9040706@huawei.com>
References: <1424853601-6675-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <1424853601-6675-15-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <2411054.s4TkmAUKjT@vostro.rjw.lan> <54F80DC9.3090808@huawei.com> <20150305112707.GB7712@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <CAJZ5v0iHstGiXLT0DPHu2=xH3bD-kD=WCqfuB1XaTgNSnthcLQ@mail.gmail.com> <20150305151915.GB11447@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from szxga01-in.huawei.com ([58.251.152.64]:2749 "EHLO
	szxga01-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1750815AbbCFG5s (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>); Fri, 6 Mar 2015 01:57:48 -0500
In-Reply-To: <20150305151915.GB11447@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Sender: linux-acpi-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org
To: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>
Cc: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>, "linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org" <linaro-acpi@lists.linaro.org>, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>, Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@arm.com>, Timur Tabi <timur@codeaurora.org>, ACPI Devel Maling List <linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org>, Grant Likely <grant.likely@linaro.org>, Robert Richter <rric@kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>, Jon Masters <jcm@redhat.com>, Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>, "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>, Ashwin Chaugule <ashwinc@codeaurora.org>, Graeme Gregory <graeme.gregory@linaro.org>, "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org>, suravee.suthikulpanit@amd.com, Sudeep Holla <Sudeep.Holla@arm.com>, Olof Johansson <olof@lixom>

On 2015/3/5 23:19, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 02:13:58PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Catalin Marinas
>> <catalin.marinas@arm.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 05, 2015 at 04:03:21PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>>>> On 2015/3/5 6:46, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>>>>> IMO, you really need to define phys_cpuid_t in a common place or people will
>>>>> forget that it may be 64-bit, because they'll only be looking at their arch.
>>>> Since x86 and ARM64 are using different types for phys_cpuid_t, we need to
>>>> introduce something like following if define it in common place:
>>>>
>>>> in linux/acpi.h,
>>>>
>>>> #if defined(CONFIG_X86) || defined(CONFIG_IA64)
>>>> typedef u32 phys_cpuid_t;
>>>> #define PHYS_CPUID_INVALID (phys_cpuid_t)(-1)
>>>> #else if defined(CONFIG_ARM64)
>>>> typedef u64 phys_cpuid_t;
>>>> #define PHYS_CPUID_INVALID INVALID_HWID
>>>> #endif
>>>>
>>>> I think it's awful, did I miss something?
>> Well, you can define the type and PHYS_CPUID_INVALID in the arch
>> code and then do this in a common header:
>>
>> #ifndef PHYS_CPUID_INVALID
>> typedef u32 phys_cpuid_t;
>> #define PHYS_CPUID_INVALID (phys_cpuid_t)(-1)
>> #endif
>>
>> That would allow you to avoid the need to duplicate the
>> definitions where it is not necessary.
> It's fine by me.

I will update the patch.

Thanks
Hanjun