From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BE7C21428E2; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 14:41:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.176.79.56 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713364911; cv=none; b=JAjpmj7RZDI5erGzd7bmi3JPgXtTvcKOaV2riLzpK94kioJrND7A+xqB27cIGgzc4em80T7rEhKb0uQc2UdCI3dH2lUjlSI5zGLMarexQSBh87GI0RI52t0Yxz4Nltfv2xAgITD0K5TDl/xS+fZp044XGcZ0BCnK0I9YBijLaGc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713364911; c=relaxed/simple; bh=2bBUJpkv4u0ce+Rp18oWAx6MoLI8B1peg59e65KozMI=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=PSI3feGv2Uzm7JE2+YHO+EiquldKyfO/6WLV4nt+0VdqDf4scTsm7Y+Lr4RfjYbkhTflr1Ika/scSTN7djaFO8G3q/flELTfnaXJHjhHLhJ+06lRAFg2W+gXJz/q3RhiT39TlMqE1VGewgpUpFR6FEAXJImVqBWqH+7sP/8T6o8= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=Huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.176.79.56 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=Huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.231]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4VKNlG239gz6D8ym; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 22:36:42 +0800 (CST) Received: from lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.191.163.240]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 09442140B38; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 22:41:40 +0800 (CST) Received: from localhost (10.202.227.76) by lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.35; Wed, 17 Apr 2024 15:41:39 +0100 Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2024 15:41:38 +0100 From: Jonathan Cameron To: "Russell King (Oracle)" CC: Thomas Gleixner , Peter Zijlstra , , , , , , , , , "Rafael J . Wysocki" , Miguel Luis , James Morse , Salil Mehta , Jean-Philippe Brucker , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , Dave Hansen , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 02/16] cpu: Do not warn on arch_register_cpu() returning -EPROBE_DEFER Message-ID: <20240417154138.0000511b@Huawei.com> In-Reply-To: References: <20240417131909.7925-1-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> <20240417131909.7925-3-Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com> Organization: Huawei Technologies Research and Development (UK) Ltd. X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.1.0 (GTK 3.24.33; x86_64-w64-mingw32) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: lhrpeml500001.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.213) To lhrpeml500005.china.huawei.com (7.191.163.240) On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 15:01:33 +0100 "Russell King (Oracle)" wrote: > On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 02:18:55PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > For arm64 the CPU registration cannot complete until the ACPI > > interpreter us up and running so in those cases the arch specific > > arch_register_cpu() will return -EPROBE_DEFER at this stage and the > > registration will be attempted later. > > > > Suggested-by: Rafael J. Wysocki > > Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki > > Signed-off-by: Jonathan Cameron > > > > --- > > v6: tags > > --- > > drivers/base/cpu.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/base/cpu.c b/drivers/base/cpu.c > > index 56fba44ba391..b9d0d14e5960 100644 > > --- a/drivers/base/cpu.c > > +++ b/drivers/base/cpu.c > > @@ -558,7 +558,7 @@ static void __init cpu_dev_register_generic(void) > > > > for_each_present_cpu(i) { > > ret = arch_register_cpu(i); > > - if (ret) > > + if (ret != -EPROBE_DEFER) > > pr_warn("register_cpu %d failed (%d)\n", i, ret); > > This looks very broken to me. > > if (ret && ret != -EPROBE_DEFER) > > surely, because we don't want to print a warning if arch_register_cpu() > was successful? Gah. Excellent point. thanks, Jonathan >