Hi Sudeep, I don't like this constant DT parsing every time a node of given CPU is required, but I believe it was correctly discussed with people that are more into CPU topologies and similar things than me. (My idea would be to make a lookup array with logical ID to struct device_node * mapping.)
Let me just review this from DT parsing perspective. On Monday 22 of July 2013 12:32:12 Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote: > From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <sudeep.karkadanage...@arm.com> > > Currently different drivers requiring to access cpu device node are > parsing the device tree themselves. Since the ordering in the DT need > not match the logical cpu ordering, the parsing logic needs to consider > that. However, this has resulted in lots of code duplication and in some > cases even incorrect logic. > > It's better to consolidate them by adding support for getting cpu > device node for a given logical cpu index in DT core library. However > logical to physical index mapping can be architecture specific. > > This patch adds of_get_cpu_node to retrieve a cpu device node for a > given logical cpu index. The default matching of the physical id to the > logical cpu index can be overridden by architecture specific code. > > It is recommended to use these helper function only in pre-SMP/early > initialisation stages to retrieve CPU device node pointers in logical > ordering. Once the cpu devices are registered, it can be retrieved > easily from cpu device of_node which avoids unnecessary parsing and > matching. > > Acked-by: Rob Herring <rob.herr...@calxeda.com> > Signed-off-by: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <sudeep.karkadanage...@arm.com> > --- > drivers/of/base.c | 72 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > include/linux/of.h | 6 +++++ > 2 files changed, 78 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/drivers/of/base.c b/drivers/of/base.c > index 5c54279..1e690bf 100644 > --- a/drivers/of/base.c > +++ b/drivers/of/base.c > @@ -230,6 +230,78 @@ const void *of_get_property(const struct > device_node *np, const char *name, } > EXPORT_SYMBOL(of_get_property); > > +/* > + * arch_match_cpu_phys_id - Match the given logical CPU and physical id > + * > + * @cpu: logical index of a cpu > + * @phys_id: physical identifier of a cpu > + * > + * CPU logical to physical index mapping is architecture specific. > + * However this __weak function provides a default match of physical > + * id to logical cpu index. > + * > + * Returns true if the physical identifier and the logical index > correspond + * to the same cpu, false otherwise. > + */ > +bool __weak arch_match_cpu_phys_id(int cpu, u64 phys_id) > +{ > + return (u32)phys_id == cpu; > +} > + > +/** > + * of_get_cpu_node - Get device node associated with the given logical > CPU + * > + * @cpu: CPU number(logical index) for which device node is required > + * > + * The main purpose of this function is to retrieve the device node for > the + * given logical CPU index. It should be used to intialize the > of_node in + * cpu device. Once of_node in cpu device is populated, all > the further + * references can use that instead. > + * > + * CPU logical to physical index mapping is architecture specific and > is built + * before booting secondary cores. This function uses > arch_match_cpu_phys_id + * which can be overridden by architecture > specific implementation. + * > + * Returns a node pointer for the logical cpu if found, else NULL. > + */ > +struct device_node *of_get_cpu_node(int cpu) > +{ > + struct device_node *cpun, *cpus; > + const __be32 *cell; > + u64 hwid; > + int ac, prop_len; > + > + cpus = of_find_node_by_path("/cpus"); > + if (!cpus) { > + pr_warn("Missing cpus node, bailing out\n"); > + return NULL; > + } > + > + if (of_property_read_u32(cpus, "#address-cells", &ac)) { > + pr_warn("%s: missing #address-cells\n", cpus->full_name); > + ac = of_n_addr_cells(cpus); I'm not sure this fallback is appropriate. According to ePAPR: "The #address-cells and #size-cells properties are not inherited from ancestors in the device tree. They shall be explicitly defined." In addition: If missing, a client program should assume a default value of 2 for #address-cells, and a value of 1 for #size-cells. This also leaves in question the correctness of of_n_addr_cells() and of_n_size_cells(). > + } > + > + for_each_child_of_node(cpus, cpun) { > + if (of_node_cmp(cpun->type, "cpu")) > + continue; > + cell = of_get_property(cpun, "reg", &prop_len); > + if (!cell) { > + pr_warn("%s: missing reg property\n", cpun- >full_name); > + continue; > + } > + prop_len /= sizeof(*cell); > + while (prop_len) { > + hwid = of_read_number(cell, ac); > + prop_len -= ac; > + if (arch_match_cpu_phys_id(cpu, hwid)) > + return cpun; This is a nice potential infinite loop. Consider following example: cpus { #address-cells = <2>; /* A typo. Should be 1. */ #size-cells = <0>; cpu@0 { /* ... */ reg = <0>; }; }; In this case prop_len will start with 1, while ac will be 2. After first iteration of the loop (when the phys id doesn't match) you will end up with prop_len = -1 and each iteration will decrement it even more. By the way, I'm not sure why the whole loop is here. IMHO it should be something like: if (prop_len != ac) { pr_warn(...); // or whatever continue; } hwid = of_read_number(cell, ac); // ... Best regards, Tomasz
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.