[v5,10/13] ARM: sun9i: smp: Move structures

Commit Message

Mylène Josserand April 3, 2018, 6:18 a.m. UTC

To prepare the support for sun8i-a83t, move some structures
at the beginning of the file.

Signed-off-by: Mylène Josserand <[e-mail]>
---
 arch/arm/mach-sunxi/mc_smp.c | 48 +++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
 1 file changed, 25 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)

Comments

Maxime Ripard April 3, 2018, 8:47 a.m. UTC | #1

On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 08:18:33AM +0200, Mylène Josserand wrote:
> To prepare the support for sun8i-a83t, move some structures
> at the beginning of the file.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mylène Josserand <[e-mail]>

I'm not quite sure what would be the benefit from that, if it's was
working before, then it would probably work in your case as welle, right?

Maxime

Chen-Yu Tsai April 3, 2018, 8:51 a.m. UTC | #2

On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 4:47 PM, Maxime Ripard <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 08:18:33AM +0200, Mylène Josserand wrote:
>> To prepare the support for sun8i-a83t, move some structures
>> at the beginning of the file.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mylène Josserand <[e-mail]>
>
> I'm not quite sure what would be the benefit from that, if it's was
> working before, then it would probably work in your case as welle, right?

You should only need to move struct sunxi_mc_smp_data, since you are reading
the is_sun9i field. I suppose you could also get away with adding a global
variable just for that, and not have to store an index or pointer. Then none
of this code movement would be necessary. It would be slightly harder to
understand, but it's still contained within this file, and it has a clear
purpose, so I would call that acceptable.

ChenYu

Patch

diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/mc_smp.c b/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/mc_smp.c
index 03f021d0c73e..0a7252df207f 100644
--- a/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/mc_smp.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/mc_smp.c
@@ -72,9 +72,34 @@  static void __iomem *cpucfg_base;
 static void __iomem *prcm_base;
 static void __iomem *sram_b_smp_base;
 
+/*
+ * This holds any device nodes that we requested resources for,
+ * so that we may easily release resources in the error path.
+ */
+struct sunxi_mc_smp_nodes {
+	struct device_node *prcm_node;
+	struct device_node *cpucfg_node;
+	struct device_node *sram_node;
+};
+
+/* This structure holds SoC-specific bits tied to an enable-method string. */
+struct sunxi_mc_smp_data {
+	const char *enable_method;
+	int (*get_smp_nodes)(struct sunxi_mc_smp_nodes *nodes);
+};
+
 extern void sunxi_mc_smp_secondary_startup(void);
 extern void sunxi_mc_smp_resume(void);
 
+static int __init sun9i_a80_get_smp_nodes(struct sunxi_mc_smp_nodes *nodes);
+
+static const struct sunxi_mc_smp_data sunxi_mc_smp_data[] __initconst = {
+	{
+		.enable_method	= "allwinner,sun9i-a80-smp",
+		.get_smp_nodes	= sun9i_a80_get_smp_nodes,
+	},
+};
+
 static bool sunxi_core_is_cortex_a15(unsigned int core, unsigned int cluster)
 {
 	struct device_node *node;
@@ -610,22 +635,6 @@  static int __init sunxi_mc_smp_loopback(void)
 	return ret;
 }
 
-/*
- * This holds any device nodes that we requested resources for,
- * so that we may easily release resources in the error path.
- */
-struct sunxi_mc_smp_nodes {
-	struct device_node *prcm_node;
-	struct device_node *cpucfg_node;
-	struct device_node *sram_node;
-};
-
-/* This structure holds SoC-specific bits tied to an enable-method string. */
-struct sunxi_mc_smp_data {
-	const char *enable_method;
-	int (*get_smp_nodes)(struct sunxi_mc_smp_nodes *nodes);
-};
-
 static void __init sunxi_mc_smp_put_nodes(struct sunxi_mc_smp_nodes *nodes)
 {
 	of_node_put(nodes->prcm_node);
@@ -660,13 +669,6 @@  static int __init sun9i_a80_get_smp_nodes(struct sunxi_mc_smp_nodes *nodes)
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static const struct sunxi_mc_smp_data sunxi_mc_smp_data[] __initconst = {
-	{
-		.enable_method	= "allwinner,sun9i-a80-smp",
-		.get_smp_nodes	= sun9i_a80_get_smp_nodes,
-	},
-};
-
 static int __init sunxi_mc_smp_init(void)
 {
 	struct sunxi_mc_smp_nodes nodes = { 0 };