Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v6 1/4] arm: introduce psci_smp_ops

[Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Stefano Stabellini wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 02:11:32PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > + psci_init();
> > >  #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > >   if (is_smp()) {
> > > -         smp_set_ops(mdesc->smp);
> > > +         if (mdesc->smp)
> > > +                 smp_set_ops(mdesc->smp);
> > > +         else if (psci_smp_available())
> > > +                 smp_set_ops(&psci_smp_ops);
> > 
> > So, I have a vague recollection that the ordering of the above got discussed
> > but I can't find it amongst the 21k of messages so far this year.
> > 
> > The above looks weird to me.  Surely this should be:
> > 
> >             if (psci_smp_available())
> >                     smp_set_ops(&psci_smp_ops);
> >             else if (mdesc->smp)
> >                     smp_set_ops(mdesc->ops);
> > 
> > This means that if PSCI is available, and provides a set of operations,
> > we override whatever the platform has statically provided.
> > 
> > Remember, we're trying to move away from using "mdesc"s for platform
> > stuff, relying on things like DT and such like.  We really should not
> > be going for mdesc-overriding-newstuff but newstuff-overriding-mdesc.
> 
> That's correct, in fact if you look at the next patch you'll see that it
> changes the order.
> 
> I introduced the mechanism first and changed the priority later - it
> should help bisectability.
> I can fold the two patches into one if you prefer.

Please let's keep the order as we discussed.  Otherwise this is just too 
confusing (Russell's comment is a good example of that).


Nicolas

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel