Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-139228-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 139.178.88.99 as permitted sender) client-ip=139.178.88.99;
Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2024 19:56:00 +0100
From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
To: Jonathan Cameron <Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com>
Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org,
	loongarch@lists.linux.dev, linux-acpi@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, kvmarm@lists.linux.dev,
	x86@kernel.org, acpica-devel@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
	linux-csky@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org,
	Salil Mehta <salil.mehta@huawei.com>,
	Jean-Philippe Brucker <jean-philippe@linaro.org>,
	jianyong.wu@arm.com, justin.he@arm.com,
	James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v4 02/15] ACPI: processor: Register all CPUs from
 acpi_processor_get_info()
Message-ID: <ZhbgwBBvh6ccdO7x@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
References: <Zbp5xzmFhKDAgHws@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
 <E1rVDmU-0027YP-Jz@rmk-PC.armlinux.org.uk>
 <CAJZ5v0iiJpUWq5GMSnKFWQTzn_bdwoQz9m=hDaXNg4Lj_ePF4g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240322185327.00002416@Huawei.com>
 <20240410134318.0000193c@huawei.com>
 <CAJZ5v0ggD042sfz3jDXQVDUxQZu_AWaF2ox-Me8CvFeRB8nczw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20240410145005.00003050@Huawei.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20240410145005.00003050@Huawei.com>
Sender: Russell King (Oracle) <linux@armlinux.org.uk>

On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 02:50:05PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote:
> If we get rid of this catch all, solution would be to move the
> !acpi_disabled check into the arm64 version of arch_cpu_register()
> because we would only want the delayed registration path to be
> used on ACPI cases where the question of CPU availability can't
> yet be resolved.

Aren't we then needing two arch_register_cpu() implementations?
I'm assuming that you're suggesting that the !acpi_disabled, then
do nothing check is moved into arch_register_cpu() - or to put it
another way, arch_register_cpu() does nothing if ACPI is enabled.

If arch_register_cpu() does nothing if ACPI is enabled, how do
CPUs get registered (and sysfs files get created to control them)
on ACPI systems? ACPI wouldn't be able to call arch_register_cpu(),
so I suspect you'll need an ACPI-specific version of this function.

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!