From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2011 11:03:03 +0100 Subject: RFC, GIC based smp_cross_call cleanup suggestion In-Reply-To: References: <10921831-0170-4106-bb3a-a52515a32c3e@VA3EHSMHS002.ehs.local> <20110402085133.GE8482@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <20110403100303.GA4213@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sun, Apr 03, 2011 at 12:37:11PM +0900, Magnus Damm wrote: > On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 5:51 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux > wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 04:55:02PM -0600, Grant Likely wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 1, 2011 at 4:26 PM, John Linn wrote: > >> > I?m getting ready to submit a patch to add SMP to Xilinx code. I notice that > >> > smp_cross_call for all GIC based platforms is duplicated across each > >> > platform in smp.h. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > I thought I?d try to jump in to help with some cleanup, although I realize > >> > it?s minimal, I have to start somewhere. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > What about moving the smp_cross_call for GIC based designs into gic.h? > >> > >> Go for it. ?It's an obvious cleanup. > > > > That assumes that all SMP implementations will always have a GIC. ?It > > looks to me like this is conditional on shmobile, and so I don't think > > its that trivial - maybe Paul or Magnus can first indicate why this is. > > Our SMP implementations all come with GIC. All shmobile SoCs don't > come with SMP though, so the conditional is most likely related to > that. On platforms without SMP, mach/smp.h shouldn't be included, so the code in mach/smp.h won't be seen by the compiler. So, I think you can get rid of that conditional.