Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 9 May 2012 23:52:47 +0900 | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mach-shmobile: Emma Mobile EV2 SMP prototype code | From | Magnus Damm <> |
| |
On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote: > On Wednesday 09 May 2012, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> On 09/05/12 13:12, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> > On Wednesday 09 May 2012, Magnus Damm wrote: >> >> static unsigned int __init shmobile_smp_get_core_count(void) >> >> { >> >> @@ -31,6 +32,9 @@ static unsigned int __init shmobile_smp_ >> >> if (is_r8a7779()) >> >> return r8a7779_get_core_count(); >> >> >> >> + if (is_emev2()) >> >> + return emev2_get_core_count(); >> >> + >> >> return 1; >> >> } >> >> >> >> @@ -41,6 +45,9 @@ static void __init shmobile_smp_prepare_ >> >> >> >> if (is_r8a7779()) >> >> r8a7779_smp_prepare_cpus(); >> >> + >> >> + if (is_emev2()) >> >> + emev2_smp_prepare_cpus(); >> >> } >> >> >> >> int shmobile_platform_cpu_kill(unsigned int cpu) >> >> ... >> > >> > This shows that we really want an abstraction for soc-specific SMP ops >> > even within one platform, and we'll need the same thing for multiplatform. >> > >> > Marc Zyngier already proposed a solution for this last year, but I >> > think we couldn't agree on the details back then before he lost interest. >> > I think we should pick that up again and get it into 3.6 so the code above >> > can be simplified and we can do the multiplatform solution. We'll probably >> > discuss the details in Hong Kong in a couple of weeks, so there is no >> > point in changing it now, but I'd hope that you can migrate this to >> > whatever we come up with in the following merge window. >> >> I'm happy to revive the series if there is an interest. > > Ok, good. I think we were almost there the last time, but I don't > know if Russell still had any objections. Magnus, can you comment on > the "[PATCH v6 09/15] ARM: SoC: convert shmobile SMP to SoC descriptor" > patch from February to see if it fits your needs?
I took the liberty to give some comments here instead. I've gone through the patch and it looks good in general. I have not tested it but I'd be happy to fix whatever fallout that may happen.
The patch is pretty close to be a perfect fit from my point of view. This is definitely a step in the right direction. I am however a bit hesitant with how the CPU hotplug code ended up, but at the same time I don't really have any better suggestions. I think I simply need to convert it to be a full per-soc implementation.
Thanks!
/ magnus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |