Re: [PATCH RFC v3 04/21] ACPI: processor: Register all CPUs from acpi_processor_get_info()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Mon, Jan 22, 2024 at 6:44 PM Jonathan Cameron
<Jonathan.Cameron@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2023 21:30:50 +0100
> "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 13, 2023 at 1:49 PM Russell King <rmk+kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: James Morse <james.morse@xxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > To allow ACPI to skip the call to arch_register_cpu() when the _STA
> > > value indicates the CPU can't be brought online right now, move the
> > > arch_register_cpu() call into acpi_processor_get_info().
> >
> > This kind of looks backwards to me and has a potential to become
> > super-confusing.
> >
> > I would instead add a way for the generic code to ask the platform
> > firmware whether or not the given CPU is enabled and so it can be
> > registered.
> Hi Rafael,
> The ACPI interpreter isn't up at this stage so we'd need to pull that
> forwards. I'm not sure if we can pull the interpreter init early enough.

Well, this patch effectively defers the AP registration to the time
when acpi_processor_get_info() runs and the interpreter is up and
running then.

For consistency, it would be better to defer the AP registration in
general to that point.

> Perhaps pushing the registration back in all cases is the way to go?
> Given the acpi interpretter is initialized via subsys_initcall() it would
> need to be after that - I tried pushing cpu_dev_register_generic()
> immediately after acpi_bus_init() and that seems fine.

Sounds promising.

> We can't leave the rest of cpu_dev_init() that late because a bunch
> of other stuff relies on it (CPU freq blows up first as a core_init()
> on my setup).

I see.

> So to make this work we need it to always move the registration later
> than the necessary infrastructure, perhaps to subsys_initcall_sync()
> as is done for missing CPUs (we'd need to combine the two given that
> needs to run after this, or potentially just stop checking for acpi_disabled
> and don't taint the kernel!).  I think this is probably the most consistent
> option on basis it at least moves the registration to the same point
> whatever is going on and can easily use the arch callback you suggest
> to hide away the logic on deciding if a CPU is there or not.

I agree.

[Index of Archives]     [Linux SoC]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux