From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman Subject: Re: [-next] cpu cache info in drivers base? Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 09:33:57 -0800 Message-ID: <20141124173357.GA27211@kroah.com> References: <20141124150048.GD3738@osiris> <5473577B.6010708@arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:53605 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754107AbaKXRd6 (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Nov 2014 12:33:58 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5473577B.6010708@arm.com> Sender: linux-next-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Sudeep Holla Cc: Heiko Carstens , Stephen Boyd , "linux-next@vger.kernel.org" On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 04:06:19PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote: > Hi Heiko, > > On 24/11/14 15:00, Heiko Carstens wrote: > >Hi there, > > > >I'm just wondering what the point of the current cpu cache info > >within drivers/base is? > >If I startup linux-next (as of today) all I get is an error message > >"error detecting cacheinfo..cpu0". > > That's correct, I did post a patch[1] to suppress that given not all > architectures might add support. > > >Which naturally comes from: > > > >int __weak init_cache_level(unsigned int cpu) > >{ > > return -ENOENT; > >} > > > >Given that there is no implementation without __weak I'm wondering > >what the point is? Also it looks like no architecture has been > >converted to the new infrastructure, even though such patches have > >been posted in the past? > > Yes, I asked Greg to hold off on the architecture patches for next > versions as there may be conflicts(though we can have solve it using > a common baseline, but I thought it was too late to try that). Also > I have not got testing on few other architectures(ppc, ia64, amd). I > will post those patches individually on respective arch lists and > chase after the v3.19-rc1 release. Is that OK ? Sorry for the delay, that patch is now applied. greg k-h