On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 8:56 PM Russell King (Oracle) <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 02:50:05PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > > If we get rid of this catch all, solution would be to move the > > !acpi_disabled check into the arm64 version of arch_cpu_register() > > because we would only want the delayed registration path to be > > used on ACPI cases where the question of CPU availability can't > > yet be resolved. > > Aren't we then needing two arch_register_cpu() implementations? > I'm assuming that you're suggesting that the !acpi_disabled, then > do nothing check is moved into arch_register_cpu() - or to put it > another way, arch_register_cpu() does nothing if ACPI is enabled. > > If arch_register_cpu() does nothing if ACPI is enabled, how do > CPUs get registered (and sysfs files get created to control them) > on ACPI systems? ACPI wouldn't be able to call arch_register_cpu(), > so I suspect you'll need an ACPI-specific version of this function. arch_register_cpu() will do what it does, but it will check (upfront) if ACPI is enabled and if so, if the ACPI Namespace is available. In the case when ACPI is enabled and the ACPI Namespace is not ready, it will return -EPROBE_DEFER (say).
