On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 3:52 PM, Maxime Ripard
<maxime.ripard@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 11:50:29PM +0200, Mylène Josserand wrote:
>> To prepare the support of sun8i-a83t, add a field in the smp_data
>> structure to know if we are on sun9i-a80 or sun8i-a83t.
>>
>> Add also a global variable to retrieve which architecture we are
>> having.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mylène Josserand <mylene.josserand@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> arch/arm/mach-sunxi/mc_smp.c | 5 +++++
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/mc_smp.c b/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/mc_smp.c
>> index 03f021d0c73e..9d57ea27dacc 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/mc_smp.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-sunxi/mc_smp.c
>> @@ -74,6 +74,7 @@ static void __iomem *sram_b_smp_base;
>>
>> extern void sunxi_mc_smp_secondary_startup(void);
>> extern void sunxi_mc_smp_resume(void);
>> +static int is_sun8i;
>>
>> static bool sunxi_core_is_cortex_a15(unsigned int core, unsigned int cluster)
>> {
>> @@ -624,6 +625,7 @@ struct sunxi_mc_smp_nodes {
>> struct sunxi_mc_smp_data {
>> const char *enable_method;
>> int (*get_smp_nodes)(struct sunxi_mc_smp_nodes *nodes);
>> + int is_sun8i;
>> };
>>
>> static void __init sunxi_mc_smp_put_nodes(struct sunxi_mc_smp_nodes *nodes)
>> @@ -664,6 +666,7 @@ static const struct sunxi_mc_smp_data sunxi_mc_smp_data[] __initconst = {
>> {
>> .enable_method = "allwinner,sun9i-a80-smp",
>> .get_smp_nodes = sun9i_a80_get_smp_nodes,
>> + .is_sun8i = false,
>
> I'm still not convinced about the name of that flag. sun8i doesn't
> mean anything, really. What you want to discriminate against it what
> you're writing in your commit log: if it is an A80 or an A83t. The
> A33, H3, A23, you name it are also part of the sun8i family, yet they
> are completely irrelevant to this file.
>
> Also, false is the default value, you can leave it out.
>
>> },
>> };
>>
>> @@ -697,6 +700,8 @@ static int __init sunxi_mc_smp_init(void)
>> break;
>> }
>>
>> + is_sun8i = sunxi_mc_smp_data[i].is_sun8i;
>> +
>
> Do we really need to cache it? Can't we just have a pointer to the SMP
> data structure and use that instead?
I recommended that. We don't need any of the other fields in the SMP
data structure once we're past the init phase. This saves a dereference
or two.
ChenYu
