Hi Sergei,
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Sergei Shtylyov
<sergei.shtylyov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello.
>
>
> On 18-06-2013 13:34, Jonas Gorski wrote:
>
>> From: Kevin Cernekee <cernekee@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>> This involves two changes to the BSP code:
>
>
>> 1) register_smp_ops() for BMIPS SMP
>
>
>> 2) The CPU1 boot vector on some of the BCM63xx platforms conflicts with
>> the special interrupt vector (IV). Move it to 0x8000_0380 at boot time,
>> to resolve the conflict.
>
>
>> Signed-off-by: Kevin Cernekee <cernekee@xxxxxxxxx>
>> [jogo@xxxxxxxxxxx: moved SMP ops registration into ifdef guard,
>> changed ifdef guards to if (IS_ENABLED())]
>> Signed-off-by: Jonas Gorski <jogo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> V1 -> V2:
>> * changed ifdef guards to if (IS_ENABLED())
>
>
>> arch/mips/bcm63xx/prom.c | 41
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+)
>
>
>> diff --git a/arch/mips/bcm63xx/prom.c b/arch/mips/bcm63xx/prom.c
>> index fd69808..33ddc78 100644
>> --- a/arch/mips/bcm63xx/prom.c
>> +++ b/arch/mips/bcm63xx/prom.c
>
> [...]
>
>> @@ -52,6 +56,43 @@ void __init prom_init(void)
>>
>> /* do low level board init */
>> board_prom_init();
>> +
>> + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_CPU_BMIPS4350) && IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_SMP)) {
>> + /* set up SMP */
>> + register_smp_ops(&bmips_smp_ops);
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * BCM6328 might not have its second CPU enabled, while
>> BCM6358
>> + * needs special handling for its shared TLB, so disable
>> SMP
>> + * for now.
>> + */
>> + if (BCMCPU_IS_6328()) {
>> + bmips_smp_enabled = 0;
>> + } else if (BCMCPU_IS_6358()) {
>> + bmips_smp_enabled = 0;
>> + }
>
>
> Doesn't scripts/checkpatch.pl complain here? You should not use {} on
> the single statement branches.
I left the braces intentionally there because Patch 2 adds code to the
first branch, so I would have to add them in the next patch anyway.
This way the changes of Patch 2 stays smaller and easier to review
(and are limited to actual code changes).
Jonas
