From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Boyd Subject: Re: [PATCH 05/11] ARM: Introduce CPU_METHOD_OF_DECLARE() for cpu hotplug/smp Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2013 09:27:17 -0800 Message-ID: <52792A75.6060306@codeaurora.org> References: <1383343739-23080-1-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org> <1383343739-23080-6-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Kumar Gala Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, David Brown , Rohit Vaswani , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, Mark Rutland , Russell King , devicetree@vger.kernel.org List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 11/05/13 09:24, Kumar Gala wrote: > On Nov 1, 2013, at 5:08 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote: > >> @@ -150,8 +182,14 @@ void __init arm_dt_init_cpu_maps(void) >> } >> >> tmp_map[i] = hwid; >> + >> + if (!found_method) >> + found_method = set_smp_ops_by_method(cpu); >> } >> >> + if (!found_method) >> + set_smp_ops_by_method(cpus); >> + > I assume this if for the case that the enable method is in the cpus{ } container but not in a specific cpu node? > > If so, the binding is not clear that we allow this. Also a comment would probably be nice. Sure I'll add a comment to that effect and clarify the binding. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation