From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: nicolas.pitre@linaro.org (Nicolas Pitre) Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 00:51:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [PATCH] irqchip: gic: Don't complain in gic_get_cpumask() if UP system In-Reply-To: <20130823043527.GG23960@codeaurora.org> References: <1373067573-29946-1-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org> <20130712111322.GC3213@e102654-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20130712121023.GB27430@codeaurora.org> <51E71249.4050200@codeaurora.org> <51E71C78.6080604@codeaurora.org> <51E7236D.3010700@codeaurora.org> <20130822184312.GE23960@codeaurora.org> <20130823043527.GG23960@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Thu, 22 Aug 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote: > On 08/22, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > On Thu, 22 Aug 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > > > On 07/17, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > > On 07/17/13 15:53, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > > > On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> On 07/17/13 15:34, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > > >>> On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> On 07/12/13 05:10, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > > >>>>> On 07/12, Javi Merino wrote: > > > > >>>>>> I agree, we should drop the check. It's annoying in uniprocessors and > > > > >>>>>> unlikely to be found in the real world unless your gic entry in the dt > > > > >>>>>> is wrong. > > > > >>> And that's a likely outcome in the real world. > > > > >>> > > > > >>>>> Ok. How about this? > > > > >>>> Any comments? > > > > >>> What about this instead: > > > > >> Unfortunately arm64 doesn't have SMP_ON_UP. > > > > > And why does that matter? > > > > > > > > Because the gic driver is compiled on both arm and arm64? I suppose we > > > > could define is_smp() to 1 on arm64 but its probably better to rely on > > > > generic kernel things instead of arch specific functions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> It sounds like you preferred the first patch using num_possible_cpus() > > > > > Probably, yes. I didn't follow the early conversation though. > > > > > > > > This was the first patch: > > > > > > > > ---8<---- > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c > > > > index 19ceaa6..589c760 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c > > > > @@ -368,7 +368,7 @@ static u8 gic_get_cpumask(struct gic_chip_data *gic) > > > > break; > > > > } > > > > > > > > - if (!mask) > > > > + if (!mask && num_possible_cpus() > 1) > > > > pr_crit("GIC CPU mask not found - kernel will fail to boot.\n"); > > > > > > > > return mask; > > > > > > Can one of these two patches be picked up? > > > > Sure. Just send it to RMK's patch system with my ACK. > > > > I'm confused on that. MAINTAINERS says this patch should go > through Thomas Gleixner's irq/core branch but it looks like only > arm-soc has been taking patches for the current location. Blah. OK then, just send it to Thomas. Initially this code was written and committed by RMK which is why I suggested you send him the fix. Nicolas