On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 09:27:40AM -0700, Toshi Kani wrote:
> How about pat_disable_setup()? It's only used for the disabled case, so
> I'd prefer to keep the word "disable".
What for?
Renaming pat_init() to pat_setup() is perfectly fine as it sets up PAT
after looking at pat_disabled() setting and after looking at the CPU
vendor. Sounds like a perfectly sane design to me.
> Yes, calling pat_init() from pat_disable() works too. I changed it in this
> way because:
> - pat_bsp_init() calls pat_disabled() in an error case. It is simpler to
> avoid a recursive call to pat_init().
So do this:
static inline void pat_disable(const char *reason)
{
if (!__pat_enabled)
return;
> - pat_bsp_init() has two different error paths, 1) call pat_disable() and
> return, and 2) goto done and call pat_init_cache_modes(). We can remove
> case 2) to keep the error handling consistent in this way.
Above.
> > Then you don't have to add yet another static disable_init_done but rely
> > on boot_cpu_done which gets set in pat_init().
>
> Right, but it will do 'boot_cpu_done = true' twice, and this implicit
> recursive call may cause an issue in future if someone makes change
> carelessly.
So move boot_cpu_done into pat_bsp_init() and make it protect that
function from a being called a second time.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
