| Message ID | 1413553034-20956-2-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Hi Catalin, On 2014?10?17? 21:36, Hanjun Guo wrote: > It always make sense to initialize CPU0's logical map entry from the > hardware values, so move the initialization of cpu_logical_map(0) > before unflatten_device_tree() which is needed by ACPI code later. > > Acked-by: Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> > Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> > Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> Could you merge this patch first in 3.19? It was acked by Olof and Mark, and it will make sense without ACPI too. Thanks Hanjun > --- > arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c > index edb146d..8f33f72 100644 > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c > @@ -393,11 +393,11 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p) > > efi_idmap_init(); > > + cpu_logical_map(0) = read_cpuid_mpidr() & MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK; > unflatten_device_tree(); > > psci_init(); > > - cpu_logical_map(0) = read_cpuid_mpidr() & MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK; > cpu_read_bootcpu_ops(); > #ifdef CONFIG_SMP > smp_init_cpus(); >
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 01:45:49PM +0000, Hanjun Guo wrote: > On 2014?10?17? 21:36, Hanjun Guo wrote: > > It always make sense to initialize CPU0's logical map entry from the > > hardware values, so move the initialization of cpu_logical_map(0) > > before unflatten_device_tree() which is needed by ACPI code later. > > > > Acked-by: Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> > > Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> > > Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> > > Could you merge this patch first in 3.19? It was acked by Olof and > Mark, and it will make sense without ACPI too. I think it can go in for 3.19 (it's Will's turn this time ;)). FWIW: Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 04:43:13PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 01:45:49PM +0000, Hanjun Guo wrote: > > On 2014?10?17? 21:36, Hanjun Guo wrote: > > > It always make sense to initialize CPU0's logical map entry from the > > > hardware values, so move the initialization of cpu_logical_map(0) > > > before unflatten_device_tree() which is needed by ACPI code later. > > > > > > Acked-by: Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> > > > Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> > > > Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> > > > > Could you merge this patch first in 3.19? It was acked by Olof and > > Mark, and it will make sense without ACPI too. > > I think it can go in for 3.19 (it's Will's turn this time ;)). This patch doesn't apply on for-next/core, as it conflicts with some of Rutland's rework ("arm64: log physical ID of boot CPU"). Will
Hi Will, I was writing to reply to Catalin's mail :) On 18/11/14 16:57, Will Deacon wrote: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 04:43:13PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 01:45:49PM +0000, Hanjun Guo wrote: >>> On 2014?10?17? 21:36, Hanjun Guo wrote: >>>> It always make sense to initialize CPU0's logical map entry from the >>>> hardware values, so move the initialization of cpu_logical_map(0) >>>> before unflatten_device_tree() which is needed by ACPI code later. >>>> >>>> Acked-by: Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> >>>> Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> >>>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> >>> >>> Could you merge this patch first in 3.19? It was acked by Olof and >>> Mark, and it will make sense without ACPI too. >> >> I think it can go in for 3.19 (it's Will's turn this time ;)). > > This patch doesn't apply on for-next/core, as it conflicts with some of > Rutland's rework ("arm64: log physical ID of boot CPU"). > It's actually not required anymore, as "arm64: log physical ID of boot CPU" move it quite early in the sequence from setup_arch to smp_setup_processor_id while this patch just moves it up in setup_arch. Regards, Sudeep
On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 05:02:05PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On 18/11/14 16:57, Will Deacon wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 04:43:13PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: > >> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 01:45:49PM +0000, Hanjun Guo wrote: > >>> On 2014?10?17? 21:36, Hanjun Guo wrote: > >>>> It always make sense to initialize CPU0's logical map entry from the > >>>> hardware values, so move the initialization of cpu_logical_map(0) > >>>> before unflatten_device_tree() which is needed by ACPI code later. > >>>> > >>>> Acked-by: Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> > >>>> Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> > >>> > >>> Could you merge this patch first in 3.19? It was acked by Olof and > >>> Mark, and it will make sense without ACPI too. > >> > >> I think it can go in for 3.19 (it's Will's turn this time ;)). > > > > This patch doesn't apply on for-next/core, as it conflicts with some of > > Rutland's rework ("arm64: log physical ID of boot CPU"). > > > > It's actually not required anymore, as "arm64: log physical ID of boot > CPU" move it quite early in the sequence from setup_arch to > smp_setup_processor_id while this patch just moves it up in setup_arch. Thanks Sudeep, I'd guessed as much :) Will
On 2014-11-19 1:03, Will Deacon wrote: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 05:02:05PM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> On 18/11/14 16:57, Will Deacon wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 04:43:13PM +0000, Catalin Marinas wrote: >>>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 01:45:49PM +0000, Hanjun Guo wrote: >>>>> On 2014?10?17? 21:36, Hanjun Guo wrote: >>>>>> It always make sense to initialize CPU0's logical map entry from the >>>>>> hardware values, so move the initialization of cpu_logical_map(0) >>>>>> before unflatten_device_tree() which is needed by ACPI code later. >>>>>> >>>>>> Acked-by: Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net> >>>>>> Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@linaro.org> >>>>> >>>>> Could you merge this patch first in 3.19? It was acked by Olof and >>>>> Mark, and it will make sense without ACPI too. >>>> >>>> I think it can go in for 3.19 (it's Will's turn this time ;)). >>> >>> This patch doesn't apply on for-next/core, as it conflicts with some of >>> Rutland's rework ("arm64: log physical ID of boot CPU"). >>> >> >> It's actually not required anymore, as "arm64: log physical ID of boot >> CPU" move it quite early in the sequence from setup_arch to >> smp_setup_processor_id while this patch just moves it up in setup_arch. > > Thanks Sudeep, I'd guessed as much :) That's great, thanks for the reminding, I will drop this one. Best regards Hanjun
diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c index edb146d..8f33f72 100644 --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c @@ -393,11 +393,11 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p) efi_idmap_init(); + cpu_logical_map(0) = read_cpuid_mpidr() & MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK; unflatten_device_tree(); psci_init(); - cpu_logical_map(0) = read_cpuid_mpidr() & MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK; cpu_read_bootcpu_ops(); #ifdef CONFIG_SMP smp_init_cpus();