Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 23 Apr 2013 19:04:06 -0500 | From | Scott Wood <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 12/15] powerpc/85xx: add time base sync support for e6500 |
| |
On 04/19/2013 05:47:45 AM, Zhao Chenhui wrote: > From: Chen-Hui Zhao <chenhui.zhao@freescale.com> > > For e6500, two threads in one core share one time base. Just need > to do time base sync on first thread of one core, and skip it on > the other thread. > > Signed-off-by: Zhao Chenhui <chenhui.zhao@freescale.com> > Signed-off-by: Li Yang <leoli@freescale.com> > Signed-off-by: Andy Fleming <afleming@freescale.com> > --- > arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/smp.c | 52 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----- > 1 files changed, 44 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/smp.c > b/arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/smp.c > index 74d8cde..5f3eee3 100644 > --- a/arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/smp.c > +++ b/arch/powerpc/platforms/85xx/smp.c > @@ -26,6 +26,7 @@ > #include <asm/cacheflush.h> > #include <asm/dbell.h> > #include <asm/fsl_guts.h> > +#include <asm/cputhreads.h> > > #include <sysdev/fsl_soc.h> > #include <sysdev/mpic.h> > @@ -45,6 +46,7 @@ static u64 timebase; > static int tb_req; > static int tb_valid; > static u32 cur_booting_core; > +static bool rcpmv2; > > #ifdef CONFIG_PPC_E500MC > /* get a physical mask of online cores and booting core */ > @@ -53,26 +55,40 @@ static inline u32 get_phy_cpu_mask(void) > u32 mask; > int cpu; > > - mask = 1 << cur_booting_core; > - for_each_online_cpu(cpu) > - mask |= 1 << get_hard_smp_processor_id(cpu); > + if (smt_capable()) { > + /* two threads in one core share one time base */ > + mask = 1 << cpu_core_index_of_thread(cur_booting_core); > + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) > + mask |= 1 << cpu_core_index_of_thread( > + get_hard_smp_processor_id(cpu)); > + } else { > + mask = 1 << cur_booting_core; > + for_each_online_cpu(cpu) > + mask |= 1 << get_hard_smp_processor_id(cpu); > + }
Where is smt_capable defined()? I assume somewhere in the patchset but it's a pain to search 12 patches...
Is this really about whether we're SMT-capable or whether we have rcpm v2?
-Scott
| |