On Thu, Aug 04, 2016 at 04:32:57PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> Hi Rich,
>
> On Thu, Aug 4, 2016 at 6:30 AM, Rich Felker <dalias@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-jcore-aic.c
>
> > +int __init aic_irq_of_init(struct device_node *node, struct device_node *parent)
> > +{
> > + unsigned min_irq = JCORE_AIC2_MIN_HWIRQ;
> > + unsigned dom_sz = JCORE_AIC_MAX_HWIRQ+1;
> > + struct irq_domain *domain;
> > +
> > + pr_info("Initializing J-Core AIC\n");
> > +
> > + /* AIC1 needs priority initialization to receive interrupts. */
> > + if (of_device_is_compatible(node, "jcore,aic1")) {
> > + unsigned cpu;
> > +
> > + for_each_present_cpu(cpu) {
> > + void __iomem *base = of_iomap(node, cpu);
>
> Just double checking, these regions are per-cpu hardware registers,
> and not related to other functionality at all?
>
> I.e. when booting on an SMP-capable system a kernel compiled with
> CONFIG_SMP=n, or using the kernel command line option maxcpus=
> to reduce the number of CPUs, no ill effects happen by not mapping the
> region and not writing to the register below?
If you're not using a secondary cpu, there's no harm in ignoring its
aic completely.
Rich
--
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
