From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754149Ab3HVS7d (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:59:33 -0400 Received: from mail-qe0-f51.google.com ([209.85.128.51]:56454 "EHLO mail-qe0-f51.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753935Ab3HVS7c (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:59:32 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:59:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Nicolas Pitre To: Stephen Boyd 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 In-Reply-To: <20130822184312.GE23960@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: 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> User-Agent: Alpine 2.03 (LFD 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: nicolas.pitre@linaro.org (Nicolas Pitre) Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:59:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [PATCH] irqchip: gic: Don't complain in gic_get_cpumask() if UP system In-Reply-To: <20130822184312.GE23960@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> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org 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