On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 05:21:00PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Please don't open-code this. Use of_device_is_available(), which checks
> the status property itself. e.g.
>
> void __init setup_smp(void)
> {
> struct device_node *node = NULL;
>
> while ((node =
On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 05:21:00PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Please don't open-code this. Use of_device_is_available(), which checks
> the status property itself. e.g.
>
> void __init setup_smp(void)
> {
> struct device_node *node = NULL;
>
> while ((node =
On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 08:26:31PM +0800, Guo Ren wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 12:43:52PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > Please see the devicetree spec [1], section 2.3.4. Valid values are:
> >
> > * "okay" // equivalent to no status property present
> > * "disabled"
> > * "fail"
> > *
On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 08:26:31PM +0800, Guo Ren wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 12:43:52PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > Please see the devicetree spec [1], section 2.3.4. Valid values are:
> >
> > * "okay" // equivalent to no status property present
> > * "disabled"
> > * "fail"
> > *
On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 11:39:32AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 02:07:40PM +0800, Guo Ren wrote:
>
> > > Please explain those mb()'s... I'm thinking you meant to use smp_mb().
> > Yes, smp_mb(). Current smp_mb()() is the same: sync.is.
> >
> > In next version patch,
On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 11:39:32AM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 02:07:40PM +0800, Guo Ren wrote:
>
> > > Please explain those mb()'s... I'm thinking you meant to use smp_mb().
> > Yes, smp_mb(). Current smp_mb()() is the same: sync.is.
> >
> > In next version patch,
On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 12:43:52PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Please see the devicetree spec [1], section 2.3.4. Valid values are:
>
> * "okay" // equivalent to no status property present
> * "disabled"
> * "fail"
> * "fail-sss"
Nice tip, thx.
> I'm a bit confused. You write (1 << cpu) into
On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 12:43:52PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> Please see the devicetree spec [1], section 2.3.4. Valid values are:
>
> * "okay" // equivalent to no status property present
> * "disabled"
> * "fail"
> * "fail-sss"
Nice tip, thx.
> I'm a bit confused. You write (1 << cpu) into
On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 07:32:01PM +0800, Guo Ren wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 06:24:33AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > + if (cpu >= NR_CPUS)
> > > + goto error;
> > > +
> > > + if (of_property_read_string(node, "status", ))
> > > + status = "enable";
> > > +
> > > + if
On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 07:32:01PM +0800, Guo Ren wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 06:24:33AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > + if (cpu >= NR_CPUS)
> > > + goto error;
> > > +
> > > + if (of_property_read_string(node, "status", ))
> > > + status = "enable";
> > > +
> > > + if
On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 06:24:33AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > + if (cpu >= NR_CPUS)
> > + goto error;
> > +
> > + if (of_property_read_string(node, "status", ))
> > + status = "enable";
> > +
> > + if (strcmp(status, "disable") == 0)
> > + goto error;
>
>
On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 06:24:33AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > + if (cpu >= NR_CPUS)
> > + goto error;
> > +
> > + if (of_property_read_string(node, "status", ))
> > + status = "enable";
> > +
> > + if (strcmp(status, "disable") == 0)
> > + goto error;
>
>
On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 02:07:40PM +0800, Guo Ren wrote:
> > Please explain those mb()'s... I'm thinking you meant to use smp_mb().
> Yes, smp_mb(). Current smp_mb()() is the same: sync.is.
>
> In next version patch, I'll seperate smp_mb() and mb() and use ld/st.barrier
> instead of sync.is.
On Fri, Jul 06, 2018 at 02:07:40PM +0800, Guo Ren wrote:
> > Please explain those mb()'s... I'm thinking you meant to use smp_mb().
> Yes, smp_mb(). Current smp_mb()() is the same: sync.is.
>
> In next version patch, I'll seperate smp_mb() and mb() and use ld/st.barrier
> instead of sync.is.
On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 08:05:03PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 01:30:19AM +0800, Guo Ren wrote:
> > +static irqreturn_t handle_ipi(int irq, void *dev)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long *pending_ipis = _data[smp_processor_id()].bits;
> > +
> > + while (true) {
> > +
On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 08:05:03PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 01:30:19AM +0800, Guo Ren wrote:
> > +static irqreturn_t handle_ipi(int irq, void *dev)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long *pending_ipis = _data[smp_processor_id()].bits;
> > +
> > + while (true) {
> > +
On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 01:30:19AM +0800, Guo Ren wrote:
> +static int csky_of_cpu(struct device_node *node)
> +{
> + const char *status;
> + int cpu;
> +
> + if (of_property_read_u32(node, "reg", ))
> + goto error;
> +
> + if (cpu >= NR_CPUS)
> + goto
On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 01:30:19AM +0800, Guo Ren wrote:
> +static int csky_of_cpu(struct device_node *node)
> +{
> + const char *status;
> + int cpu;
> +
> + if (of_property_read_u32(node, "reg", ))
> + goto error;
> +
> + if (cpu >= NR_CPUS)
> + goto
On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 01:30:19AM +0800, Guo Ren wrote:
> +static irqreturn_t handle_ipi(int irq, void *dev)
> +{
> + unsigned long *pending_ipis = _data[smp_processor_id()].bits;
> +
> + while (true) {
> + unsigned long ops;
> +
> + /* Order bit clearing and data
On Mon, Jul 02, 2018 at 01:30:19AM +0800, Guo Ren wrote:
> +static irqreturn_t handle_ipi(int irq, void *dev)
> +{
> + unsigned long *pending_ipis = _data[smp_processor_id()].bits;
> +
> + while (true) {
> + unsigned long ops;
> +
> + /* Order bit clearing and data
Signed-off-by: Guo Ren
---
arch/csky/include/asm/smp.h | 26 +
arch/csky/kernel/smp.c | 256
2 files changed, 282 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 arch/csky/include/asm/smp.h
create mode 100644 arch/csky/kernel/smp.c
diff --git
Signed-off-by: Guo Ren
---
arch/csky/include/asm/smp.h | 26 +
arch/csky/kernel/smp.c | 256
2 files changed, 282 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 arch/csky/include/asm/smp.h
create mode 100644 arch/csky/kernel/smp.c
diff --git
22 matches
Mail list logo
