lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Apr]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v6 1/4] arm: introduce psci_smp_ops
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 12:35:57PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 02:11:32PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > + psci_init();
> > > > #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > > > if (is_smp()) {
> > > > - smp_set_ops(mdesc->smp);
> > > > + if (mdesc->smp)
> > > > + smp_set_ops(mdesc->smp);
> > > > + else if (psci_smp_available())
> > > > + smp_set_ops(&psci_smp_ops);
> > >
> > > So, I have a vague recollection that the ordering of the above got discussed
> > > but I can't find it amongst the 21k of messages so far this year.
> > >
> > > The above looks weird to me. Surely this should be:
> > >
> > > if (psci_smp_available())
> > > smp_set_ops(&psci_smp_ops);
> > > else if (mdesc->smp)
> > > smp_set_ops(mdesc->ops);
> > >
> > > This means that if PSCI is available, and provides a set of operations,
> > > we override whatever the platform has statically provided.
> > >
> > > Remember, we're trying to move away from using "mdesc"s for platform
> > > stuff, relying on things like DT and such like. We really should not
> > > be going for mdesc-overriding-newstuff but newstuff-overriding-mdesc.
> >
> > That's correct, in fact if you look at the next patch you'll see that it
> > changes the order.
> >
> > I introduced the mechanism first and changed the priority later - it
> > should help bisectability.
> > I can fold the two patches into one if you prefer.
>
> Please let's keep the order as we discussed. Otherwise this is just too
> confusing (Russell's comment is a good example of that).

My comment is based on the code which I had read and quoted. Things
had moved on from that point, but, because I had 2000 odd messages to
get through, there was no way to know at that point that there had been
further discussion.

This is why catching up is such a problem - not only the amount of time
it takes (I'm _still_ reading messages - I've only just read your reply
above, so I'm still back in Thursday's email...)

I don't think there's any confusion though - the order I suggested seems
to be the order which I recall later patches adopted.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-04-22 17:01    [W:0.168 / U:0.164 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site