From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:03:50 +0000 Subject: [PATCH v5 01/18] ARM64: Move the init of cpu_logical_map(0) before unflatten_device_tree() In-Reply-To: <546B7B8D.1070201@arm.com> References: <1413553034-20956-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <1413553034-20956-2-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org> <546B4D8D.2020605@linaro.org> <20141118164312.GL28279@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20141118165713.GT18842@arm.com> <546B7B8D.1070201@arm.com> Message-ID: <20141118170349.GU18842@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 05:02:05PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On 18/11/14 16:57, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 04:43:13PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 01:45:49PM +0000, Hanjun Guo wrote: > >>> On 2014?10?17? 21:36, Hanjun Guo wrote: > >>>> It always make sense to initialize CPU0's logical map entry from the > >>>> hardware values, so move the initialization of cpu_logical_map(0) > >>>> before unflatten_device_tree() which is needed by ACPI code later. > >>>> > >>>> Acked-by: Olof Johansson > >>>> Acked-by: Mark Rutland > >>>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo > >>> > >>> Could you merge this patch first in 3.19? It was acked by Olof and > >>> Mark, and it will make sense without ACPI too. > >> > >> I think it can go in for 3.19 (it's Will's turn this time ;)). > > > > This patch doesn't apply on for-next/core, as it conflicts with some of > > Rutland's rework ("arm64: log physical ID of boot CPU"). > > > > It's actually not required anymore, as "arm64: log physical ID of boot > CPU" move it quite early in the sequence from setup_arch to > smp_setup_processor_id while this patch just moves it up in setup_arch. Thanks Sudeep, I'd guessed as much :) Will