From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754370Ab3HWEf3 (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Aug 2013 00:35:29 -0400 Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.11.231]:47087 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753109Ab3HWEf2 (ORCPT ); Fri, 23 Aug 2013 00:35:28 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 21:35:27 -0700 From: Stephen Boyd To: Nicolas Pitre Cc: Russell King , Javi Merino , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] irqchip: gic: Don't complain in gic_get_cpumask() if UP system Message-ID: <20130823043527.GG23960@codeaurora.org> References: <1373067573-29946-1-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org> <20130712111322.GC3213@e102654-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20130712121023.GB27430@codeaurora.org> <51E71249.4050200@codeaurora.org> <51E71C78.6080604@codeaurora.org> <51E7236D.3010700@codeaurora.org> <20130822184312.GE23960@codeaurora.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 08/22, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > 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. > I'm confused on that. MAINTAINERS says this patch should go through Thomas Gleixner's irq/core branch but it looks like only arm-soc has been taking patches for the current location. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sboyd@codeaurora.org (Stephen Boyd) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 21:35:27 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] irqchip: gic: Don't complain in gic_get_cpumask() if UP system In-Reply-To: References: <1373067573-29946-1-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org> <20130712111322.GC3213@e102654-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20130712121023.GB27430@codeaurora.org> <51E71249.4050200@codeaurora.org> <51E71C78.6080604@codeaurora.org> <51E7236D.3010700@codeaurora.org> <20130822184312.GE23960@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: <20130823043527.GG23960@codeaurora.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 08/22, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > 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. > I'm confused on that. MAINTAINERS says this patch should go through Thomas Gleixner's irq/core branch but it looks like only arm-soc has been taking patches for the current location. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation