From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King - ARM Linux Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] ARM: vexpress: Remove platform SMP functions from ct_desc Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 15:31:02 +0000 Message-ID: <20111117153102.GQ9581@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1321036026-23411-1-git-send-email-pawel.moll@arm.com> <1321036026-23411-3-git-send-email-pawel.moll@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1321036026-23411-3-git-send-email-pawel.moll-5wv7dgnIgG8@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Sender: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org To: Pawel Moll Cc: devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 06:27:03PM +0000, Pawel Moll wrote: > This patch removes platform SMP callbacks from ct_desc struct > and replaces them with global symbols in preparation for > DT-based support code. Will and myself discussed how to do this, and we came up with the ct_desc solution. Now you're doing something different. It seems to me like there's a disconnect between various different parts of ARM Ltd between people who have different ideas about how problems are to be solved. So, what's the technical reason for this change? I can't see how this improves anything. In fact, this patch reintroduces a bug which have been previously fixed: > +static void ct_ca9x4_init_cpu_map(void) > +{ > + int i, ncores; > + ncores = scu_get_core_count(V2T_PERIPH_P2V(A9_MPCORE_SCU)); > + > + for (i = 0; i < ncores; ++i) > + set_cpu_possible(i, true); > + > + set_smp_cross_call(gic_raise_softirq); > +} vs > -static void ct_ca9x4_init_cpu_map(void) > -{ > - int i, ncores = scu_get_core_count(V2TILE_PERIPH_P2V(A9_MPCORE_SCU)); > - > - if (ncores > nr_cpu_ids) { > - pr_warn("SMP: %u cores greater than maximum (%u), clipping\n", > - ncores, nr_cpu_ids); > - ncores = nr_cpu_ids; > - } > - > - for (i = 0; i < ncores; ++i) > - set_cpu_possible(i, true); > - > - set_smp_cross_call(gic_raise_softirq); > -} When you rebase, please pay better attention to the conflicts.