When CONFIG_NR_CPUS is smaller than the cpu nodes defined in the device
tree, all the cpu nodes parsing will fail.
And this is not reasonable for a legal device tree configs.
In this patch, skip such cpu nodes rather than return an error.
With CONFIG_NR_CPUS = 128 and cpus nodes num in device tree is 130,
The following warning messages will be print during boot:
CPU node for /cpus/cpu@128 exist but the possible cpu range is :0-127
CPU node for /cpus/cpu@129 exist but the possible cpu range is :0-127
CPU node for /cpus/cpu@130 exist but the possible cpu range is :0-127
Signed-off-by: Zeng Tao <[email protected]>
---
Changelog:
v1->v2:
-Remove redundant -ENODEV assignment in get_cpu_for_node
-Add comment to describe the get_cpu_for_node return values
-Add skip process for cpu threads
-Update the commit log with more detail
---
drivers/base/arch_topology.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
index 5fe44b3..01f0e21 100644
--- a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
+++ b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
@@ -248,22 +248,44 @@ core_initcall(free_raw_capacity);
#endif
#if defined(CONFIG_ARM64) || defined(CONFIG_RISCV)
+/*
+ * This function returns the logic cpu number of the node.
+ * There are totally three kinds of return values:
+ * (1) logic cpu number which is > 0.
+ * (2) -ENDEV when the node is valid one which can be found in the device tree
+ * but there is no possible cpu nodes to match, when the CONFIG_NR_CPUS is
+ * smaller than cpus node numbers in device tree, this will happen. It's
+ * suggested to just ignore this case.
+ * (3) -EINVAL when other errors occur.
+ */
static int __init get_cpu_for_node(struct device_node *node)
{
- struct device_node *cpu_node;
+ struct device_node *cpu_node, *t;
int cpu;
+ bool found = false;
cpu_node = of_parse_phandle(node, "cpu", 0);
if (!cpu_node)
- return -1;
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ for_each_of_cpu_node(t)
+ if (t == cpu_node) {
+ found = true;
+ break;
+ }
+
+ if (!found) {
+ pr_crit("Unable to find CPU node for %pOF\n", cpu_node);
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
cpu = of_cpu_node_to_id(cpu_node);
if (cpu >= 0)
topology_parse_cpu_capacity(cpu_node, cpu);
else
- pr_crit("Unable to find CPU node for %pOF\n", cpu_node);
+ pr_warn("CPU node for %pOF exist but the possible cpu range is :%*pbl\n",
+ cpu_node, cpumask_pr_args(cpu_possible_mask));
- of_node_put(cpu_node);
return cpu;
}
@@ -286,9 +308,8 @@ static int __init parse_core(struct device_node *core, int package_id,
cpu_topology[cpu].package_id = package_id;
cpu_topology[cpu].core_id = core_id;
cpu_topology[cpu].thread_id = i;
- } else {
- pr_err("%pOF: Can't get CPU for thread\n",
- t);
+ } else if (cpu != -ENODEV) {
+ pr_err("%pOF: Can't get CPU for thread\n", t);
of_node_put(t);
return -EINVAL;
}
@@ -307,7 +328,7 @@ static int __init parse_core(struct device_node *core, int package_id,
cpu_topology[cpu].package_id = package_id;
cpu_topology[cpu].core_id = core_id;
- } else if (leaf) {
+ } else if (leaf && cpu != -ENODEV) {
pr_err("%pOF: Can't get CPU for leaf core\n", core);
return -EINVAL;
}
--
2.8.1
On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 02:53:40PM +0800, Zeng Tao wrote:
> When CONFIG_NR_CPUS is smaller than the cpu nodes defined in the device
> tree, all the cpu nodes parsing will fail.
> And this is not reasonable for a legal device tree configs.
> In this patch, skip such cpu nodes rather than return an error.
> With CONFIG_NR_CPUS = 128 and cpus nodes num in device tree is 130,
> The following warning messages will be print during boot:
> CPU node for /cpus/cpu@128 exist but the possible cpu range is :0-127
> CPU node for /cpus/cpu@129 exist but the possible cpu range is :0-127
> CPU node for /cpus/cpu@130 exist but the possible cpu range is :0-127
>
> Signed-off-by: Zeng Tao <[email protected]>
> ---
> Changelog:
> v1->v2:
> -Remove redundant -ENODEV assignment in get_cpu_for_node
> -Add comment to describe the get_cpu_for_node return values
> -Add skip process for cpu threads
> -Update the commit log with more detail
> ---
> drivers/base/arch_topology.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> index 5fe44b3..01f0e21 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> @@ -248,22 +248,44 @@ core_initcall(free_raw_capacity);
> #endif
>
> #if defined(CONFIG_ARM64) || defined(CONFIG_RISCV)
> +/*
> + * This function returns the logic cpu number of the node.
> + * There are totally three kinds of return values:
> + * (1) logic cpu number which is > 0.
> + * (2) -ENDEV when the node is valid one which can be found in the device tree
> + * but there is no possible cpu nodes to match, when the CONFIG_NR_CPUS is
> + * smaller than cpus node numbers in device tree, this will happen. It's
> + * suggested to just ignore this case.
s/ENDEV/ENODEV/
Also as I mentioned earlier, I prefer not to add any extra logic here
other than the above comment to make it explicit. This triggers unnecessary
warnings when someone boots with limited CPUs for valid reasons.
> + * (3) -EINVAL when other errors occur.
> + */
> static int __init get_cpu_for_node(struct device_node *node)
> {
> - struct device_node *cpu_node;
> + struct device_node *cpu_node, *t;
> int cpu;
> + bool found = false;
>
> cpu_node = of_parse_phandle(node, "cpu", 0);
> if (!cpu_node)
> - return -1;
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> + for_each_of_cpu_node(t)
> + if (t == cpu_node) {
> + found = true;
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + if (!found) {
> + pr_crit("Unable to find CPU node for %pOF\n", cpu_node);
> + return -EINVAL;
> + }
>
> cpu = of_cpu_node_to_id(cpu_node);
> if (cpu >= 0)
> topology_parse_cpu_capacity(cpu_node, cpu);
> else
> - pr_crit("Unable to find CPU node for %pOF\n", cpu_node);
> + pr_warn("CPU node for %pOF exist but the possible cpu range is :%*pbl\n",
> + cpu_node, cpumask_pr_args(cpu_possible_mask));
>
> - of_node_put(cpu_node);
Why is this dropped ?
--
Regards,
Sudeep
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sudeep Holla [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 6:19 PM
> To: Zengtao (B)
> Cc: Linuxarm; Greg Kroah-Hartman; Rafael J. Wysocki; Sudeep Holla;
> [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cpu-topology: Skip the exist but not possible cpu
> nodes
>
> On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 02:53:40PM +0800, Zeng Tao wrote:
> > When CONFIG_NR_CPUS is smaller than the cpu nodes defined in the
> device
> > tree, all the cpu nodes parsing will fail.
> > And this is not reasonable for a legal device tree configs.
> > In this patch, skip such cpu nodes rather than return an error.
> > With CONFIG_NR_CPUS = 128 and cpus nodes num in device tree is
> 130,
> > The following warning messages will be print during boot:
> > CPU node for /cpus/cpu@128 exist but the possible cpu range
> is :0-127
> > CPU node for /cpus/cpu@129 exist but the possible cpu range
> is :0-127
> > CPU node for /cpus/cpu@130 exist but the possible cpu range
> is :0-127
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Zeng Tao <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > Changelog:
> > v1->v2:
> > -Remove redundant -ENODEV assignment in get_cpu_for_node
> > -Add comment to describe the get_cpu_for_node return values
> > -Add skip process for cpu threads
> > -Update the commit log with more detail
> > ---
> > drivers/base/arch_topology.c | 37
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> > 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> > index 5fe44b3..01f0e21 100644
> > --- a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> > +++ b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> > @@ -248,22 +248,44 @@ core_initcall(free_raw_capacity);
> > #endif
> >
> > #if defined(CONFIG_ARM64) || defined(CONFIG_RISCV)
> > +/*
> > + * This function returns the logic cpu number of the node.
> > + * There are totally three kinds of return values:
> > + * (1) logic cpu number which is > 0.
> > + * (2) -ENDEV when the node is valid one which can be found in the
> device tree
> > + * but there is no possible cpu nodes to match, when the
> CONFIG_NR_CPUS is
> > + * smaller than cpus node numbers in device tree, this will happen.
> It's
> > + * suggested to just ignore this case.
>
> s/ENDEV/ENODEV/
Good catch, thanks.
>
> Also as I mentioned earlier, I prefer not to add any extra logic here
> other than the above comment to make it explicit. This triggers
> unnecessary
> warnings when someone boots with limited CPUs for valid reasons.
>
So , what 's your suggestion here? Just keep the comments but remove
the warning message print?
>
> > + * (3) -EINVAL when other errors occur.
> > + */
> > static int __init get_cpu_for_node(struct device_node *node)
> > {
> > - struct device_node *cpu_node;
> > + struct device_node *cpu_node, *t;
> > int cpu;
> > + bool found = false;
> >
> > cpu_node = of_parse_phandle(node, "cpu", 0);
> > if (!cpu_node)
> > - return -1;
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + for_each_of_cpu_node(t)
> > + if (t == cpu_node) {
> > + found = true;
> > + break;
> > + }
> > +
> > + if (!found) {
> > + pr_crit("Unable to find CPU node for %pOF\n", cpu_node);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> >
> > cpu = of_cpu_node_to_id(cpu_node);
> > if (cpu >= 0)
> > topology_parse_cpu_capacity(cpu_node, cpu);
> > else
> > - pr_crit("Unable to find CPU node for %pOF\n", cpu_node);
> > + pr_warn("CPU node for %pOF exist but the possible cpu range
> is :%*pbl\n",
> > + cpu_node, cpumask_pr_args(cpu_possible_mask));
> >
> > - of_node_put(cpu_node);
>
> Why is this dropped ?
It's unnecessary here since no one get the node ref.
Regards
Zengtao
On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 12:06:11PM +0000, Zengtao (B) wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Sudeep Holla [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 6:19 PM
> > To: Zengtao (B)
> > Cc: Linuxarm; Greg Kroah-Hartman; Rafael J. Wysocki; Sudeep Holla;
> > [email protected]
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cpu-topology: Skip the exist but not possible cpu
> > nodes
> >
> > On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 02:53:40PM +0800, Zeng Tao wrote:
> > > When CONFIG_NR_CPUS is smaller than the cpu nodes defined in the
> > device
> > > tree, all the cpu nodes parsing will fail.
> > > And this is not reasonable for a legal device tree configs.
> > > In this patch, skip such cpu nodes rather than return an error.
> > > With CONFIG_NR_CPUS = 128 and cpus nodes num in device tree is
> > 130,
> > > The following warning messages will be print during boot:
> > > CPU node for /cpus/cpu@128 exist but the possible cpu range
> > is :0-127
> > > CPU node for /cpus/cpu@129 exist but the possible cpu range
> > is :0-127
> > > CPU node for /cpus/cpu@130 exist but the possible cpu range
> > is :0-127
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Zeng Tao <[email protected]>
> > > ---
> > > Changelog:
> > > v1->v2:
> > > -Remove redundant -ENODEV assignment in get_cpu_for_node
> > > -Add comment to describe the get_cpu_for_node return values
> > > -Add skip process for cpu threads
> > > -Update the commit log with more detail
> > > ---
> > > drivers/base/arch_topology.c | 37
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> > > 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> > b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> > > index 5fe44b3..01f0e21 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> > > @@ -248,22 +248,44 @@ core_initcall(free_raw_capacity);
> > > #endif
> > >
> > > #if defined(CONFIG_ARM64) || defined(CONFIG_RISCV)
> > > +/*
> > > + * This function returns the logic cpu number of the node.
> > > + * There are totally three kinds of return values:
> > > + * (1) logic cpu number which is > 0.
> > > + * (2) -ENDEV when the node is valid one which can be found in the
> > device tree
> > > + * but there is no possible cpu nodes to match, when the
> > CONFIG_NR_CPUS is
> > > + * smaller than cpus node numbers in device tree, this will happen.
> > It's
> > > + * suggested to just ignore this case.
> >
> > s/ENDEV/ENODEV/
> Good catch, thanks.
>
> >
> > Also as I mentioned earlier, I prefer not to add any extra logic here
> > other than the above comment to make it explicit. This triggers
> > unnecessary
> > warnings when someone boots with limited CPUs for valid reasons.
> >
>
> So , what 's your suggestion here? Just keep the comments but remove
> the warning message print?
Yes for all the "found" logic. I am fine to update the existing err
> >
> > > + * (3) -EINVAL when other errors occur.
> > > + */
> > > static int __init get_cpu_for_node(struct device_node *node)
> > > {
> > > - struct device_node *cpu_node;
> > > + struct device_node *cpu_node, *t;
> > > int cpu;
> > > + bool found = false;
> > >
> > > cpu_node = of_parse_phandle(node, "cpu", 0);
> > > if (!cpu_node)
> > > - return -1;
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > +
> > > + for_each_of_cpu_node(t)
> > > + if (t == cpu_node) {
> > > + found = true;
> > > + break;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (!found) {
> > > + pr_crit("Unable to find CPU node for %pOF\n", cpu_node);
> > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > + }
Drop all the above change.
> > >
> > > cpu = of_cpu_node_to_id(cpu_node);
> > > if (cpu >= 0)
> > > topology_parse_cpu_capacity(cpu_node, cpu);
You can add here: else if (cpu == -ENODEV)
pr_info(...whatever you have below..)
Other things as is. Warning may be too harsh if one is running with
reduced number of CPUs.
> > > else
> > > - pr_crit("Unable to find CPU node for %pOF\n", cpu_node);
> > > + pr_warn("CPU node for %pOF exist but the possible cpu range
> > is :%*pbl\n",
> > > + cpu_node, cpumask_pr_args(cpu_possible_mask));
> > >
> > > - of_node_put(cpu_node);
> >
> > Why is this dropped ?
>
> It's unnecessary here since no one get the node ref.
>
Please read the description of of_parse_phandle. If you find other
issues with existing code, address it in separate patch and don't mix
with the issue in $subject.
--
Regards,
Sudeep
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sudeep Holla [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 8:21 PM
> To: Zengtao (B)
> Cc: Linuxarm; Greg Kroah-Hartman; Rafael J. Wysocki; Sudeep Holla;
> [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cpu-topology: Skip the exist but not possible cpu
> nodes
>
> On Mon, Jan 13, 2020 at 12:06:11PM +0000, Zengtao (B) wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Sudeep Holla [mailto:[email protected]]
> > > Sent: Monday, January 13, 2020 6:19 PM
> > > To: Zengtao (B)
> > > Cc: Linuxarm; Greg Kroah-Hartman; Rafael J. Wysocki; Sudeep Holla;
> > > [email protected]
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cpu-topology: Skip the exist but not possible
> cpu
> > > nodes
> > >
> > > On Sat, Jan 11, 2020 at 02:53:40PM +0800, Zeng Tao wrote:
> > > > When CONFIG_NR_CPUS is smaller than the cpu nodes defined in
> the
> > > device
> > > > tree, all the cpu nodes parsing will fail.
> > > > And this is not reasonable for a legal device tree configs.
> > > > In this patch, skip such cpu nodes rather than return an error.
> > > > With CONFIG_NR_CPUS = 128 and cpus nodes num in device tree
> is
> > > 130,
> > > > The following warning messages will be print during boot:
> > > > CPU node for /cpus/cpu@128 exist but the possible cpu range
> > > is :0-127
> > > > CPU node for /cpus/cpu@129 exist but the possible cpu range
> > > is :0-127
> > > > CPU node for /cpus/cpu@130 exist but the possible cpu range
> > > is :0-127
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Zeng Tao <[email protected]>
> > > > ---
> > > > Changelog:
> > > > v1->v2:
> > > > -Remove redundant -ENODEV assignment in get_cpu_for_node
> > > > -Add comment to describe the get_cpu_for_node return values
> > > > -Add skip process for cpu threads
> > > > -Update the commit log with more detail
> > > > ---
> > > > drivers/base/arch_topology.c | 37
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
> > > > 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> > > b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> > > > index 5fe44b3..01f0e21 100644
> > > > --- a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> > > > +++ b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c
> > > > @@ -248,22 +248,44 @@ core_initcall(free_raw_capacity);
> > > > #endif
> > > >
> > > > #if defined(CONFIG_ARM64) || defined(CONFIG_RISCV)
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * This function returns the logic cpu number of the node.
> > > > + * There are totally three kinds of return values:
> > > > + * (1) logic cpu number which is > 0.
> > > > + * (2) -ENDEV when the node is valid one which can be found in
> the
> > > device tree
> > > > + * but there is no possible cpu nodes to match, when the
> > > CONFIG_NR_CPUS is
> > > > + * smaller than cpus node numbers in device tree, this will
> happen.
> > > It's
> > > > + * suggested to just ignore this case.
> > >
> > > s/ENDEV/ENODEV/
> > Good catch, thanks.
> >
> > >
> > > Also as I mentioned earlier, I prefer not to add any extra logic here
> > > other than the above comment to make it explicit. This triggers
> > > unnecessary
> > > warnings when someone boots with limited CPUs for valid reasons.
> > >
> >
> > So , what 's your suggestion here? Just keep the comments but remove
> > the warning message print?
>
> Yes for all the "found" logic. I am fine to update the existing err
>
Find, I will take it.
.
> > >
> > > > + * (3) -EINVAL when other errors occur.
> > > > + */
> > > > static int __init get_cpu_for_node(struct device_node *node)
> > > > {
> > > > - struct device_node *cpu_node;
> > > > + struct device_node *cpu_node, *t;
> > > > int cpu;
> > > > + bool found = false;
> > > >
> > > > cpu_node = of_parse_phandle(node, "cpu", 0);
> > > > if (!cpu_node)
> > > > - return -1;
> > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > +
> > > > + for_each_of_cpu_node(t)
> > > > + if (t == cpu_node) {
> > > > + found = true;
> > > > + break;
> > > > + }
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!found) {
> > > > + pr_crit("Unable to find CPU node for %pOF\n",
> cpu_node);
> > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > > + }
>
> Drop all the above change.
Could you help to explain here?
I understand there are two abnormal cases:
1. The cpu node exist in the device tree, but not a possible cpu.
This case can be caught by of_cpu_node_to_id's return value.
2. The cpu node does not exist.
This case can be caught by above logic. Or do you think
of_parse_phandle's return value is enough?
>
> > > >
> > > > cpu = of_cpu_node_to_id(cpu_node);
> > > > if (cpu >= 0)
> > > > topology_parse_cpu_capacity(cpu_node, cpu);
>
> You can add here: else if (cpu == -ENODEV)
> pr_info(...whatever you have below..)
>
> Other things as is. Warning may be too harsh if one is running with
> reduced number of CPUs.
>
> > > > else
> > > > - pr_crit("Unable to find CPU node for %pOF\n",
> cpu_node);
> > > > + pr_warn("CPU node for %pOF exist but the possible cpu
> range
> > > is :%*pbl\n",
> > > > + cpu_node, cpumask_pr_args(cpu_possible_mask));
> > > >
> > > > - of_node_put(cpu_node);
> > >
> > > Why is this dropped ?
> >
> > It's unnecessary here since no one get the node ref.
> >
>
> Please read the description of of_parse_phandle. If you find other
> issues with existing code, address it in separate patch and don't mix
> with the issue in $subject.
>
^_^, got it , will remove, Thanks
Regards
Zengtao
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 01:42:25AM +0000, Zengtao (B) wrote:
> Could you help to explain here?
> I understand there are two abnormal cases:
> 1. The cpu node exist in the device tree, but not a possible cpu.
> This case can be caught by of_cpu_node_to_id's return value.
Yes if of_cpu_node_to_id returns -ENODEV, it means there's no logical
CPU associated with this DT node.
> 2. The cpu node does not exist. This case can be caught by above logic. Or
> do you think of_parse_phandle's return value is enough?
Again yes, there's nothing extra needed.
The only change you need is to consider -ENODEV while handling the case(1)
--
Regards,
Sudeep
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sudeep Holla [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2020 6:30 PM
> To: Zengtao (B)
> Cc: Linuxarm; Greg Kroah-Hartman; Rafael J. Wysocki;
> [email protected]; Sudeep Holla
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] cpu-topology: Skip the exist but not possible cpu
> nodes
>
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 01:42:25AM +0000, Zengtao (B) wrote:
> > Could you help to explain here?
> > I understand there are two abnormal cases:
> > 1. The cpu node exist in the device tree, but not a possible cpu.
> > This case can be caught by of_cpu_node_to_id's return value.
>
> Yes if of_cpu_node_to_id returns -ENODEV, it means there's no logical
> CPU associated with this DT node.
>
> > 2. The cpu node does not exist. This case can be caught by above logic.
> Or
> > do you think of_parse_phandle's return value is enough?
>
> Again yes, there's nothing extra needed.
>
> The only change you need is to consider -ENODEV while handling the
> case(1)
>
Thanks very much for your explanation.
So finally it turns into a very simple patch like this, more cleaner:
+/*
+ * This function returns the logic cpu number of the node.
+ * There are basically three kinds of return values:
+ * (1) logic cpu number which is > 0.
+ * (2) -ENDEV when the node is valid one which can be found in the device tree
+ * but there is no possible cpu nodes to match, when the CONFIG_NR_CPUS is
+ * smaller than cpus node numbers in device tree, this will happen. It's
+ * suggested to just ignore this case.
+ * (3) -1 if the node does not exist in the device tree
+ */
static int __init get_cpu_for_node(struct device_node *node)
{
struct device_node *cpu_node;
@@ -261,7 +271,8 @@ static int __init get_cpu_for_node(struct device_node *node)
if (cpu >= 0)
topology_parse_cpu_capacity(cpu_node, cpu);
else
- pr_crit("Unable to find CPU node for %pOF\n", cpu_node);
+ pr_info("CPU node for %pOF exist but the possible cpu range is :%*pbl\n",
+ cpu_node, cpumask_pr_args(cpu_possible_mask));
of_node_put(cpu_node);
return cpu;
@@ -286,9 +297,8 @@ static int __init parse_core(struct device_node *core, int package_id,
cpu_topology[cpu].package_id = package_id;
cpu_topology[cpu].core_id = core_id;
cpu_topology[cpu].thread_id = i;
- } else {
- pr_err("%pOF: Can't get CPU for thread\n",
- t);
+ } else if (cpu != -ENODEV) {
+ pr_err("%pOF: Can't get CPU for thread\n", t);
of_node_put(t);
return -EINVAL;
}
@@ -307,7 +317,7 @@ static int __init parse_core(struct device_node *core, int package_id,
cpu_topology[cpu].package_id = package_id;
cpu_topology[cpu].core_id = core_id;
- } else if (leaf) {
+ } else if (leaf && cpu != -ENODEV) {
pr_err("%pOF: Can't get CPU for leaf core\n", core);
return -EINVAL;
}
Any more suggestions?
Regards
Zengtao
On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 12:17:41PM +0000, Zengtao (B) wrote:
[...]
> Thanks very much for your explanation.
> So finally it turns into a very simple patch like this, more cleaner:
> +/*
> + * This function returns the logic cpu number of the node.
> + * There are basically three kinds of return values:
> + * (1) logic cpu number which is > 0.
> + * (2) -ENDEV when the node is valid one which can be found in the device tree
s/ENDEV/ENODEV/ again :)
> + * but there is no possible cpu nodes to match, when the CONFIG_NR_CPUS is
> + * smaller than cpus node numbers in device tree, this will happen. It's
> + * suggested to just ignore this case.
> + * (3) -1 if the node does not exist in the device tree
> + */
> static int __init get_cpu_for_node(struct device_node *node)
> {
> struct device_node *cpu_node;
> @@ -261,7 +271,8 @@ static int __init get_cpu_for_node(struct device_node *node)
> if (cpu >= 0)
> topology_parse_cpu_capacity(cpu_node, cpu);
> else
> - pr_crit("Unable to find CPU node for %pOF\n", cpu_node);
> + pr_info("CPU node for %pOF exist but the possible cpu range is :%*pbl\n",
> + cpu_node, cpumask_pr_args(cpu_possible_mask));
>
> of_node_put(cpu_node);
> return cpu;
> @@ -286,9 +297,8 @@ static int __init parse_core(struct device_node *core, int package_id,
> cpu_topology[cpu].package_id = package_id;
> cpu_topology[cpu].core_id = core_id;
> cpu_topology[cpu].thread_id = i;
> - } else {
> - pr_err("%pOF: Can't get CPU for thread\n",
> - t);
> + } else if (cpu != -ENODEV) {
> + pr_err("%pOF: Can't get CPU for thread\n", t);
> of_node_put(t);
> return -EINVAL;
> }
> @@ -307,7 +317,7 @@ static int __init parse_core(struct device_node *core, int package_id,
>
> cpu_topology[cpu].package_id = package_id;
> cpu_topology[cpu].core_id = core_id;
> - } else if (leaf) {
> + } else if (leaf && cpu != -ENODEV) {
> pr_err("%pOF: Can't get CPU for leaf core\n", core);
> return -EINVAL;
> }
>
> Any more suggestions?
None except the above minor nit. I will wait for v3 before I give ack/review
tag. Thanks for the patience.
--
Regards,
Sudeep