On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 10:17:06PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thursday 09 April 2015 12:37:09 Kumar Gala wrote: > > @@ -67,4 +67,9 @@ extern const struct cpu_operations *cpu_ops[NR_CPUS]; > > int __init cpu_read_ops(struct device_node *dn, int cpu); > > void __init cpu_read_bootcpu_ops(void); > > > > +#define CPU_METHOD_OF_DECLARE(name, __ops) \ > > + static const struct cpu_operations *__cpu_method_table_##name \ > > + __used __section(__cpu_method_of_table) \ > > + = __ops; > > + > > #endif /* ifndef __ASM_CPU_OPS_H */ > > > > I'd rather not add this, to avoid giving the appearance that platforms > can just add another one here. Likewise. SMP bringup is always hairy, and giving the appearance that such code should be hidden away somewhere (and missing critical review) is a bad idea. While this seemed like a good idea in the past for 32-bit, we've only seen marginal decoupling, and very little in the way of actual semantics defined for the enable-methods. Which effectively spreads implementation details further rather than separating them from the interface. Mark. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
