On 05/22/2013 03:03 AM, Peter De Schrijver wrote:
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 06:15:48PM +0200, Stephen Warren wrote:
>> On 05/21/2013 04:13 AM, Joseph Lo wrote:
>>> The Tegra114 could hotplug the CPU0, but the common cpu_disable didn't
>>> support that. Adding a Tegra specific cpu_disable function for it.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Joseph Lo <josephl@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-tegra/hotplug.c b/arch/arm/mach-tegra/hotplug.c
>>
>>> +int tegra_cpu_disable(unsigned int cpu)
>>> +{
>>> + switch (tegra_chip_id) {
>>> + case TEGRA114:
>>> + return 0;
>>> + default:
>>> + return cpu == 0 ? -EPERM : 0;
>>> + }
>>> +}
>>
>> Do we expect all/most future chips to support hotplug of CPU0? Or at
>> least, fewer chips to have the restriction than not? If so, it might be
>
> Yes. I think we can safely assume future chips will support hotplugging CPU0.
>
>> more forward-looking to write that as:
>>
>> if (tegra_chip_id == TEGRA30)
>> return cpu == 0 ? -EPERM : 0;
>>
>
> Also Tegra20 doesn't support hotplugging CPU0?
Oh right, this isn't a Tegra30+ file. How about just inverting the
switch so it doesn't need to change later:
switch (tegra_chip_id) {
case TEGRA20:
case TEGRA30:
return cpu == 0 ? -EPERM : 0;
default:
return 0;
}
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-tegra" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
