On Sat, Oct 18, 2025 at 4:48 AM Ricardo Neri <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 11:46:59AM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 4:48 AM Ricardo Neri > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > In preparation to move the functionality to wake secondary CPUs up from > > > the > > > ACPI code, add two helper functions. > > > > > > The function acpi_setup_mp_wakeup_mailbox() stores the physical address of > > > the mailbox and updates the wakeup_secondary_cpu_64() APIC callback. > > > > > > There is a slight change in behavior: now the APIC callback is updated > > > before configuring CPU hotplug offline behavior. This is fine as the APIC > > > callback continues to be updated unconditionally, regardless of the > > > restriction on CPU offlining. > > > > > > The function acpi_madt_multiproc_wakeup_mailbox() returns a pointer to the > > > mailbox. Use this helper function only in the portions of the code for > > > which the variable acpi_mp_wake_mailbox will be out of scope once it is > > > relocated out of the ACPI directory. > > > > > > The wakeup mailbox is only supported for CONFIG_X86_64 and needed only > > > with > > > CONFIG_SMP=y. > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Dexuan Cui <[email protected]> > > > Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <[email protected]> > > > > This should have been > > > > Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki (Intel) <[email protected]> > > > > The "(Intel)" part is missing and I omitted it when I sent the tag. > > Sorry for the confusion. > > Thanks for the clarification Rafael. Does this clarification apply also > patches 2 and 3?
Yes, it does. > Also, if no further changes are needed in the series, can it be corrected > when the patches are merged? I think so.
