On 23/02/2014 1:51 pm, Gedare Bloom wrote:
On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 5:02 PM, Chris Johns <chr...@rtems.org> wrote:
I do not agree with this approach. All cores need to be present before
continuing and it forces cpu 0 to be a "boot" or "primary" processor. This
design is not symmetric.
Chris
Chris, this patch is just moving around the code that exists. Feel
free to file a PR if you think there is a bug in the existing code.
I know the origin of the code and I am not rejecting the change. It is
part of the various bits that make up initialising SMP and I just wish
to draw attention to what we have. I do not think a PR will help here.
My concern is this approach of synced initialisation of all cores being
so deeply embedded in the code it will be impossible to remove and I do
not remember any discussion about this being the design for RTEMS.
Chris
_______________________________________________
rtems-devel mailing list
rtems-devel@rtems.org
http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-devel
