On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 02:50:05PM +0100, Jonathan Cameron wrote: > If we get rid of this catch all, solution would be to move the > !acpi_disabled check into the arm64 version of arch_cpu_register() > because we would only want the delayed registration path to be > used on ACPI cases where the question of CPU availability can't > yet be resolved. Aren't we then needing two arch_register_cpu() implementations? I'm assuming that you're suggesting that the !acpi_disabled, then do nothing check is moved into arch_register_cpu() - or to put it another way, arch_register_cpu() does nothing if ACPI is enabled. If arch_register_cpu() does nothing if ACPI is enabled, how do CPUs get registered (and sysfs files get created to control them) on ACPI systems? ACPI wouldn't be able to call arch_register_cpu(), so I suspect you'll need an ACPI-specific version of this function. -- RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
