Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:59:29 -0400 (EDT) | From | Nicolas Pitre <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] irqchip: gic: Don't complain in gic_get_cpumask() if UP system |
| |
On Thu, 22 Aug 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 07/17, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > On 07/17/13 15:53, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > > > >> On 07/17/13 15:34, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > >>> On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> On 07/12/13 05:10, Stephen Boyd wrote: > > >>>>> On 07/12, Javi Merino wrote: > > >>>>>> I agree, we should drop the check. It's annoying in uniprocessors and > > >>>>>> unlikely to be found in the real world unless your gic entry in the dt > > >>>>>> is wrong. > > >>> And that's a likely outcome in the real world. > > >>> > > >>>>> Ok. How about this? > > >>>> Any comments? > > >>> What about this instead: > > >> Unfortunately arm64 doesn't have SMP_ON_UP. > > > And why does that matter? > > > > Because the gic driver is compiled on both arm and arm64? I suppose we > > could define is_smp() to 1 on arm64 but its probably better to rely on > > generic kernel things instead of arch specific functions. > > > > > > > >> It sounds like you preferred the first patch using num_possible_cpus() > > > Probably, yes. I didn't follow the early conversation though. > > > > This was the first patch: > > > > ---8<---- > > > > diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c > > index 19ceaa6..589c760 100644 > > --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c > > +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c > > @@ -368,7 +368,7 @@ static u8 gic_get_cpumask(struct gic_chip_data *gic) > > break; > > } > > > > - if (!mask) > > + if (!mask && num_possible_cpus() > 1) > > pr_crit("GIC CPU mask not found - kernel will fail to boot.\n"); > > > > return mask; > > Can one of these two patches be picked up?
Sure. Just send it to RMK's patch system with my ACK.
Nicolas
| |