On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 03:31:24PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 05, 2023 at 07:05:42PM +0530, Sunil V L wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 09:57:19PM +0100, Conor Dooley wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 04, 2023 at 11:50:27PM +0530, Sunil V L wrote:
...
> > > > - if (of_property_read_string(node, "riscv,isa", &isa)) {
> > > > - pr_warn("Unable to find \"riscv,isa\" devicetree entry\n");
> > > > - continue;
> > > > + if (acpi_disabled) {
> > > > + node = of_cpu_device_node_get(cpu);
> > > > + if (node) {
> > > > + rc = of_property_read_string(node, "riscv,isa", &isa);
> > >
> > > Hmm, after digging in the previous patch, I think this is actually not
> > > possible to fail? We already validated it when setting up the mask of
> > > possible cpus, but I think leaving the error handling here makes things
> > > a lot more obvious.
> > >
> > Yeah, do you prefer to merge these patches again since only in this
> > patch, we change the loop to for_each_possible_cpu() from
> > for_each_of_cpu_node() which actually makes riscv_of_processor_hartid()
> > not useful?
>
> Yah, all 3 of us mistakenly thought that that was an unrelated cleanup
> on the last revision, but clearly it is not.
> Squash it back IMO, sorry for my part in the extra work generated.
Yup, please squash back in. Sorry about that, Sunil!
drew
