From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland)
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2015 11:25:48 +0100
Subject: [PATCH v2 21/22] arm64: cpuinfo: Expose MIDR_EL1 and REVIDR_EL1
 to sysfs
In-Reply-To: <CAPvkgC31-gUmetN0S=t9yJ30M8=x7Y7prxO40tiEB=zJiUvwBg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1444064531-25607-1-git-send-email-suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
 <1444064531-25607-22-git-send-email-suzuki.poulose@arm.com>
 <20151006090959.GO21513@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
 <CAPvkgC31-gUmetN0S=t9yJ30M8=x7Y7prxO40tiEB=zJiUvwBg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20151006102548.GC26433@leverpostej>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tue, Oct 06, 2015 at 11:18:42AM +0100, Steve Capper wrote:
> On 6 October 2015 at 10:09, Russell King - ARM Linux
> <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 06:02:10PM +0100, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
> >> +static int __init cpuinfo_regs_init(void)
> >> +{
> >> +     int cpu, ret;
> >> +
> >> +     for_each_present_cpu(cpu) {
> >> +             struct device *dev = get_cpu_device(cpu);
> >> +
> >> +             if (!dev)
> >> +                     return -1;
> >
> > NAK.  Go figure out why, I'm too lazy to tell you.
> 
> I will correct the return code to be -ENODEV.
> Was that the reasoning behind the NAK?

I suspect the half-initialised sysfs groups also have something to do
with it...

Mark.

> 
> >
> >> +
> >> +             ret = sysfs_create_group(&dev->kobj, &cpuregs_attr_group);
> >> +             if (ret)
> >> +                     return ret;
> >> +     }
> >> +
> >> +     return 0;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +device_initcall(cpuinfo_regs_init);
> >> --
> >> 1.7.9.5
>