From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com (Suzuki K. Poulose)
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 17:41:42 +0000
Subject: [PATCH v5 1/8] arm64: Get rid of struct cpu_table
In-Reply-To: <20150323173821.GD1556@arm.com>
References: <1426690527-14258-1-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
 <1426690527-14258-2-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
 <55104926.1060901@arm.com> <20150323173821.GD1556@arm.com>
Message-ID: <55105056.4020305@arm.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 23/03/15 17:38, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 05:11:02PM +0000, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
>> On 18/03/15 14:55, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
>>> @@ -209,22 +207,12 @@ static void __init smp_build_mpidr_hash(void)
>>>
>>>    static void __init setup_processor(void)
>>>    {
>>> -       struct cpu_info *cpu_info;
>>>           u64 features, block;
>>>           u32 cwg;
>>>           int cls;
>>>
>>> -       cpu_info = lookup_processor_type(read_cpuid_id());
>>> -       if (!cpu_info) {
>>> -               printk("CPU configuration botched (ID %08x), unable to continue.\n",
>>> -                      read_cpuid_id());
>>> -               while (1);
>>> -       }
>>> -
>>> -       cpu_name = cpu_info->cpu_name;
>>> -
>>> -       printk("CPU: %s [%08x] revision %d\n",
>>> -              cpu_name, read_cpuid_id(), read_cpuid_id() & 15);
>>> +       printk("CPU: AArch64 Processor [%08x] revision %d\n",
>>> +              read_cpuid_id(), read_cpuid_id() & 15);
>>>
>>
>> While we are at it, does it make sense to change
>>
>>    s/CPU/Boot CPU/
>>
>> to make it clear on a big.Little system ?
>
> This is already queued, so I don't think it's worth the effort now.
ok, not a major one. I will fix it in one of my series

Suzuki