On Thu, 2015-07-02 at 17:29 +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 09:37:23PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> > It is normal that firmware presents GICC entry or entries (processors)
> > with disabled flag in ACPI MADT, taking a system of 16 cpus for example,
> > ACPI firmware may present 8 enabled first with another 8 cpus disabled
> > in MADT, the disabled cpus can be hot-added later.
> >
> > Firmware may also present more cpus than the hardware actually has, but
> > disabled the unused ones, and easily enable it when the hardware has such
> > cpus to make the firmware code scalable.
> >
> > So that's not an error for disabled cpus in MADT, we can switch
> > pr_err() to pr_debug() instead.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
> > index 4b2121b..5caf04a 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/smp.c
> > @@ -402,7 +402,7 @@ acpi_map_gic_cpu_interface(struct acpi_madt_generic_interrupt *processor)
> > }
> >
> > if (!(processor->flags & ACPI_MADT_ENABLED)) {
> > - pr_err("skipping disabled CPU entry with 0x%llx MPIDR\n", hwid);
> > + pr_debug("skipping disabled CPU entry with 0x%llx MPIDR\n", hwid);
>
> That's a pretty harmless change. But looking at the use-case, would we
> expect the disabled entries to have a valid hwid? I guess such hwid is
> not known, especially if we can hot-plug some CPU at a later time. If
> that's the case, can we also move this check before the hwid one?
>
Heh, I should have read ahead. I just made the same point in a
mail I just sent.
--
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
