From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland)
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 18:15:54 +0000
Subject: [PATCH 12/14] arm64: kill acpi_set_mailbox_entry()
In-Reply-To: <20170321180040.GA4849@red-moon>
References: <1489143891-11596-1-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com>
 <1489143891-11596-13-git-send-email-mark.rutland@arm.com>
 <20170321180040.GA4849@red-moon>
Message-ID: <20170321181554.GF29116@leverpostej>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 06:00:40PM +0000, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:04:49AM +0000, Mark Rutland wrote:

> > +static struct parking_protocol_mailbox __iomem *mailboxes[NR_CPUS];
> 
> Nit: If I am not mistaken it can be made a percpu pointer.

Unfortunately, we don't set up the percpu areas until we know how many
CPUs are possible (i.e. after we've parsed the MADT).

The flow looks like:

start_kernel()
  setup_arch()
    smp_init_cpus()
      acpi_table_parse_madt()
        acpi_parse_gic_cpu_interface()
          acpi_map_gic_cpu_interface() // setup cpu mailbox here
  ...
  setup_per_cpu_areas() // percpu available here

Otherwise, I completely agree that a percpu pointer would be the right
thing to do.

> Other than that:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com>

I take it this stands, given the above?

Thanks,
Mark.