lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [May]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH] mach-shmobile: Emma Mobile EV2 SMP prototype code
    Date
    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?

    FWIW, I would actually prefer merging the 'struct arm_soc_desc', 'struct
    arm_soc_smp_init_ops' and 'struct arm_soc_smp_ops' structures into a
    single 'struct smp_ops' for simplicity. While that would no longer allow
    us to put more stuff in there, I also don't see an urgent need to do so.
    I also don't mind the code that we had in version 6.

    Arnd


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-05-09 16:21    [W:0.036 / U:2.284 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site