On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 09:40:26PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: > On 2015年03月26日 11:49, Hanjun Guo wrote: > >On 2015/3/26 1:21, Catalin Marinas wrote: > >>On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 10:02:46PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote: > >>>--- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c > >>>+++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c > >>>@@ -170,7 +170,7 @@ static int acpi_processor_hotadd_init(struct acpi_processor *pr) > >>> acpi_status status; > >>> int ret; > >>> > >>>- if (pr->phys_id == -1) > >>>+ if (pr->phys_id == PHYS_CPUID_INVALID) > >>> return -ENODEV; > >>If PHYS_CPUID_INVALID is the same as INVALID_HWID, we should get rid of > >>the latter in the arm64 code (as a subsequent clean-up patch). > > > >OK, I'm preparing a patch set to introduce invalid_phys_cpuid() and invalid_logical_cpuid() > >to remove the direct comparison of PHYS_CPUID_INVALID and -1 in ACPI processor drivers, > >which is suggested by Rafael, I will cleanup PHYS_CPUID_INVALID in this patch set. > > I met difficulty to do so, because we use > > +#ifndef PHYS_CPUID_INVALID > +typedef u32 phys_cpuid_t; > +#define PHYS_CPUID_INVALID (phys_cpuid_t)(-1) > +#endif > > in the common head file linux/acpi.h, we need macro > PHYS_CPUID_INVALID to identify if phys_cpuid_t is typedefed > for different arch, so if we want remove PHYS_CPUID_INVALID > for ARM64, we need to got back to typedef phys_cpuid_t for > each arch using ACPI. which means that What I meant was removing INVALID_HWID from arm64 and always use the PHYS_CPUID_INVALID but I think we should leave them as they are for now since PHYS_CPUID_INVALID is defined in the asm/acpi.h file. -- Catalin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
