Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S936283Ab3DRQgD (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Apr 2013 12:36:03 -0400 Received: from mail-qc0-f181.google.com ([209.85.216.181]:47895 "EHLO mail-qc0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932233Ab3DRQgA (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Apr 2013 12:36:00 -0400 Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 12:35:57 -0400 (EDT) From: Nicolas Pitre To: Stefano Stabellini cc: Russell King - ARM Linux , "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "will.deacon@arm.com" , "arnd@arndb.de" , "rob.herring@calxeda.com" , "marc.zyngier@arm.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/4] arm: introduce psci_smp_ops In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <1365167495-18508-1-git-send-email-stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> <20130418161341.GB14496@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> User-Agent: Alpine 2.03 (LFD 1266 2009-07-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1778 Lines: 47 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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/