On 26/04/18 19:33, Jeremy Linton wrote: > Hi, > > On 04/26/2018 05:27 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> >> >> On 26/04/18 00:31, Jeremy Linton wrote: >>> Its helpful to be able to lookup the acpi_processor_id associated >>> with a logical cpu. Provide an arm64 helper to do this. >>> >> >> As I pointed out in the earlier version, this patch is not required. >> The acpi_id stored in the acpi_processor can be used for this. >> Won't the below change make it work ? I can't think of any reason why it >> shouldn't. > > So, I only noticed your previous email last night on the mail archive, > as I was applying your review/ack tags and couldn't find a response for > this patch, seem the spam/etc filters need some further tweaking! > Ah that's bad. > At that point, I was pretty sure the suggestion wasn't going to work out > of the box as a lot of this code is running fairly early in the boot > process. I spent a bit of time and plugged the change in to verify that > assertion, and yes the per_cpu processor/acpi bits aren't setup early > enough to be used by much of this code. It is being called from > init_cpu_topology()/smp_prepare_cpus() which precedes > do_basic_setup/do_initcalls() which is what runs the acpi_init() > sequence which ends up eventually allocating the required data > structures. So without restructuring the core boot sequence, this seems > like a reasonable solution. > OK makes sense. I completely ignored topology related patches as I haven't looked at them yet and assumed cacheinfo is the only user. Sorry for that. -- Regards, Sudeep -- 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
