On Mon, Sep 18, 2023 at 09:16:18AM +0100, Russell King (Oracle) wrote: > On Fri, Sep 15, 2023 at 09:09:10PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 14 2023 at 15:51, Russell King wrote: > > > Provide common prototypes for arch_register_cpu() and > > > arch_unregister_cpu(). These are called by acpi_processor.c, with > > > weak versions, so the prototype for this is already set. It is > > > generally not necessary for function prototypes to be conditional > > > on preprocessor macros. > > > > > > Some architectures (e.g. Loongarch) are missing the prototype for this, > > > and rather than add it to Loongarch's asm/cpu.h, lets do the job once > > > for everyone. > > > > > > Since this covers everyone, remove the now unnecessary prototypes in > > > asm/cpu.h, and we also need to remove the 'static' from one of ia64's > > > arch_register_cpu() definitions. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Russell King (Oracle) <rmk+kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > --- > > > Spotted during the review of James Morse's patches, I think rather than > > > adding prototypes for loongarch to its asm/cpu.h, it would make more > > > sense to provide the prototypes in a non-arch specific header file so > > > everyone can benefit, rather than having each architecture do its own > > > thing. > > > > > > I'm sending this as RFC as James has yet to comment on my proposal, and > > > also to a wider audience, and although it makes a little more work for > > > James (to respin his series) it does mean that his series should get a > > > little smaller. > > > > And it makes tons of sense. > > > > > See: > > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230913163823.7880-2-james.morse@xxxxxxx > > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230913163823.7880-4-james.morse@xxxxxxx > > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230913163823.7880-23-james.morse@xxxxxxx > > > > > > v2: lets try not fat-fingering vim. > > > > Yeah. I wondered how you managed to mangle that :) > > > > > arch/ia64/include/asm/cpu.h | 5 ----- > > > arch/ia64/kernel/topology.c | 2 +- > > > > That's moot as ia64 is queued for removal :) > > Okay, one less thing to worry about. Tomorrow, I'll re-spin without the > ia64 bits included. > > I would really like to hear from James before we think about merging > this, as it will impact James' patch set and would add a dependency > for that. I wouldn't want this patch to become a reason to delay > James' patch set for another kernel cycle. It's been totally quiet for a week both from James and from Thomas, I'll send the patch with the ia64 bits dropped. -- RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!
|