Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-39989-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 11:13:43 +0100
From: Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>
To: Aleksander Jan Bajkowski <olek2@wp.pl>
Cc: john@phrozen.org, linux-mips@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] MIPS: lantiq: register smp_ops on non-smp platforms
Message-ID: <ZbOF1wPz2Xa3AyU/@alpha.franken.de>
References: <20240122184709.9625-1-olek2@wp.pl>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240122184709.9625-1-olek2@wp.pl>

On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 07:47:09PM +0100, Aleksander Jan Bajkowski wrote:
> Lantiq uses a common kernel config for devices with 24Kc and 34Kc cores.
> The changes made previously to add support for interrupts on all cores
> work on 24Kc platforms with SMP disabled and 34Kc platforms with SMP
> enabled. This patch fixes boot issues on Danube (single core 24Kc) with
> SMP enabled.
> 
> Fixes: 730320fd770d ("MIPS: lantiq: enable all hardware interrupts on second VPE")
> Signed-off-by: Aleksander Jan Bajkowski <olek2@wp.pl>
> ---
>  arch/mips/lantiq/prom.c | 7 +++----
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/arch/mips/lantiq/prom.c b/arch/mips/lantiq/prom.c
> index a3cf29365858..0c45767eacf6 100644
> --- a/arch/mips/lantiq/prom.c
> +++ b/arch/mips/lantiq/prom.c
> @@ -108,10 +108,9 @@ void __init prom_init(void)
>  	prom_init_cmdline();
>  
>  #if defined(CONFIG_MIPS_MT_SMP)
> -	if (cpu_has_mipsmt) {
> -		lantiq_smp_ops = vsmp_smp_ops;
> +	lantiq_smp_ops = vsmp_smp_ops;
> +	if (cpu_has_mipsmt)
>  		lantiq_smp_ops.init_secondary = lantiq_init_secondary;
> -		register_smp_ops(&lantiq_smp_ops);
> -	}
> +	register_smp_ops(&lantiq_smp_ops);
>  #endif
>  }
> -- 
> 2.39.2

applied to mips-fixes.

Thomas.

-- 
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
good idea.                                                [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]