Hi Sudeep,
This looks good to me overall, but I have one more question inline.
On Friday 16 of August 2013 18:39:50 Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:
> From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <sudeep.karkadanagesha@xxxxxxx>
>
> 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.
>
> PowerPC has it's own implementation to get the cpu node for a given
> logical index.
>
> This patch refactors the current implementation of of_get_cpu_node.
> This in preparation to move the implementation to DT core library.
> It separates out the logical to physical mapping so that a default
> matching of the physical id to the logical cpu index can be added
> when moved to common code. Architecture specific code can override it.
>
> Cc: Rob Herring <rob.herring@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <sudeep.karkadanagesha@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c | 76
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------ 1 file changed, 47
> insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c b/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c
> index eb23ac9..fb12be6 100644
> --- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c
> +++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/prom.c
> @@ -865,45 +865,63 @@ static int __init prom_reconfig_setup(void)
> __initcall(prom_reconfig_setup);
> #endif
>
> +bool arch_match_cpu_phys_id(int cpu, u64 phys_id)
> +{
> + return (int)phys_id == get_hard_smp_processor_id(cpu);
> +}
> +
> +static bool __of_find_n_match_cpu_property(struct device_node *cpun,
> + const char *prop_name, int cpu, unsigned int
*thread)
> +{
> + const __be32 *cell;
> + int ac, prop_len, tid;
> + u64 hwid;
> +
> + ac = of_n_addr_cells(cpun);
> + cell = of_get_property(cpun, prop_name, &prop_len);
> + if (!cell)
> + return false;
I wonder how would this handle uniprocessor ARM (pre-v7) cores, for which
the updated bindings[1] define #address-cells = <0> and so no reg
property.
[1] - http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.arm.kernel/260795
Best regards,
Tomasz
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
