> > As I mentioned in my other mail, I am thinking of changing them to > arch_cpu_pre_starting(), arch_cpu_pre_online() and arch_cpu_post_online(). > Let me know what you think of those names. Much better than "__" - so if none of the guys that excel in core code objects go for that. > Would you kindly add a changelog and your sign-off to this patch? Will do in next revision. ... Thanks for the throughfull review. I will address all points - including passing the pointer down, as I assume you have some future plans with that pointer. > > I still didn't get how this solves the original problem of > not having sparc_cpu_model set to sparc_leon. You mentioned > that by the time we reach leon_smp_cpu_startup, that variable > is not set. Even inside leon_smp_cpu_startup, I don't immediately > see where it is set. Am I missing something? After looking more closely at the code it is my understanding that a leon CPU when started will actually jump to the reset vector and start from there. So the secondary CPU's will run long time after sparc_cpu_model is set so we can safely use it. The sun based cpu will in comparsion jump to an address supplied to a prom call - so they do not jump to the reset vector. But they also have sparc_cpu_model set so no problem there either. All this are my deductions from reading the code - but this is not an area I have looked at otherwise.. I may not find time today to cook up a new version of the patch - but then you will have it tomorrow. Sam -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
