On 07/17, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 07/17/13 15:53, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >
> >> On 07/17/13 15:34, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 07/12/13 05:10, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >>>>> On 07/12, Javi Merino wrote:
> >>>>>> I agree, we should drop the check. It's annoying in uniprocessors and
> >>>>>> unlikely to be found in the real world unless your gic entry in the dt
> >>>>>> is wrong.
> >>> And that's a likely outcome in the real world.
> >>>
> >>>>> Ok. How about this?
> >>>> Any comments?
> >>> What about this instead:
> >> Unfortunately arm64 doesn't have SMP_ON_UP.
> > And why does that matter?
>
> Because the gic driver is compiled on both arm and arm64? I suppose we
> could define is_smp() to 1 on arm64 but its probably better to rely on
> generic kernel things instead of arch specific functions.
>
> >
> >> It sounds like you preferred the first patch using num_possible_cpus()
> > Probably, yes. I didn't follow the early conversation though.
>
> This was the first patch:
>
> ---8<----
>
> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
> index 19ceaa6..589c760 100644
> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
> @@ -368,7 +368,7 @@ static u8 gic_get_cpumask(struct gic_chip_data *gic)
> break;
> }
>
> - if (!mask)
> + if (!mask && num_possible_cpus() > 1)
> pr_crit("GIC CPU mask not found - kernel will fail to boot.\n");
>
> return mask;
Can one of these two patches be picked up?
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
