From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: rafael@kernel.org (Rafael J. Wysocki)
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2015 14:23:56 +0100
Subject: [PATCH v9 02/21] ACPI / processor: Introduce phys_cpuid_t for CPU
 hardware ID
In-Reply-To: <54F8095C.4030308@huawei.com>
References: <1424853601-6675-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
 <1424853601-6675-3-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
 <1484357.vjmmcyQq4z@vostro.rjw.lan> <54F8095C.4030308@huawei.com>
Message-ID: <CAJZ5v0hu=TB4S00krNk1RpsXeHJVud2ehhcM0dZDhHAk6DamKg@mail.gmail.com>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Hanjun Guo <guohanjun@huawei.com> wrote:
> On 2015/3/5 6:29, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
>> On Wednesday, February 25, 2015 04:39:42 PM Hanjun Guo wrote:

[cut]

>>> @@ -190,7 +190,7 @@ int acpi_map_cpuid(int phys_id, u32 acpi_id)
>>>              if (nr_cpu_ids <= 1 && acpi_id == 0)
>>>                      return acpi_id;
>>>              else
>>> -                    return phys_id;
>>> +                    return -1;
>> Can we use a proper error code here?
>
> I'm afraid not. In ACPI processor drivers, -1 will be deemed to
> invalid cpu logical number, if we return error code here, we need
> to modify multi places of "if (cpu_logical_num == -1)" to

Oh, silly stuff.

> "if (! (cpu_logical_num < 0))" too, so for me, I prefer to keep it as
> -1, but I'm open for suggestions.

OK

I think we need something like invalid_logical_cpuid() and use it
in all of those checks instead of the direct comparisons, but we
can make those changes later.

Rafael