On 07/06/2016 11:30 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 12:11:44PM -0500, Jeremy Linton wrote:It is helpful if we can read the cpuid/midr of other CPUs in the system independent of arm/arm64. Signed-off-by: Jeremy Linton <jeremy.linton@xxxxxxx> --- arch/arm/include/asm/cputype.h | 6 +++++- arch/arm64/include/asm/cputype.h | 4 ++++ 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/cputype.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/cputype.h index 1ee94c7..e391b67 100644 --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/cputype.h +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/cputype.h @@ -81,6 +81,8 @@ #define ARM_CPU_XSCALE_ARCH_V2 0x4000 #define ARM_CPU_XSCALE_ARCH_V3 0x6000 +#define ARM_PARTNUM(cpuid_id) (cpuid_id & ARM_CPU_PART_MASK) + extern unsigned int processor_id; #ifdef CONFIG_CPU_CP15 @@ -180,7 +182,7 @@ static inline unsigned int __attribute_const__ read_cpuid_implementor(void) */ static inline unsigned int __attribute_const__ read_cpuid_part(void) { - return read_cpuid_id() & ARM_CPU_PART_MASK; + return ARM_PARTNUM(read_cpuid_id());I don't understand why you need to make this change.
The short answer is that the ARM_PARTNUM stuff is left over from v4 (?) of the patch, where it seemed a good idea to create a macro that was arm/arm64 independent for use in arm_pmu.c. Somewhere along there I reverted the ARM_PARTNUM to MIDR_PARTNUM in the arm_pmu_acpi.c but didn't drop that portion from this patch. Partially because it seems like a good idea. OTOH, your right probably doesn't belong here without the large cleanup which would form their own patch set.
-- 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
