On 2015/3/30 21:58, Catalin Marinas wrote: > 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. OK, thanks for the clarify. Hanjun -- 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
