From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ccross@google.com (Colin Cross) Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2011 02:10:10 -0700 Subject: RFC, GIC based smp_cross_call cleanup suggestion In-Reply-To: <20110402085133.GE8482@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <10921831-0170-4106-bb3a-a52515a32c3e@VA3EHSMHS002.ehs.local> <20110402085133.GE8482@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Sat, Apr 2, 2011 at 1:51 AM, 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. OMAP4 may also require a custom smp_cross_call implementation if CPU idle is going to be supported in SMP - in CPU off idle modes, a GIC SGI will not wake the CPU, and a write directly to the CPU's power management controller or an external interrupt source would be required.