On 06/02/2012 09:53 PM, Sam Ravnborg wrote: >> >> As I mentioned in my other mail, I am thinking of changing them to >> arch_cpu_pre_starting(), arch_cpu_pre_online() and arch_cpu_post_online(). >> Let me know what you think of those names. > Much better than "__" - so if none of the guys that excel in core > code objects go for that. > Ok.. >> Would you kindly add a changelog and your sign-off to this patch? > Will do in next revision. > Great! > ... > > Thanks for the throughfull review. > I will address all points - including passing the pointer down, > as I assume you have some future plans with that pointer. > >> >> I still didn't get how this solves the original problem of >> not having sparc_cpu_model set to sparc_leon. You mentioned >> that by the time we reach leon_smp_cpu_startup, that variable >> is not set. Even inside leon_smp_cpu_startup, I don't immediately >> see where it is set. Am I missing something? > > After looking more closely at the code it is my understanding > that a leon CPU when started will actually jump to the reset > vector and start from there. > So the secondary CPU's will run long time after > sparc_cpu_model is set so we can safely use it. > > The sun based cpu will in comparsion jump to > an address supplied to a prom call - so they do not > jump to the reset vector. > But they also have sparc_cpu_model set so no problem there > either. > Ok.. > All this are my deductions from reading the code - but this > is not an area I have looked at otherwise.. > > I may not find time today to cook up a new version of > the patch - but then you will have it tomorrow. > Sure! Once again, thanks a lot for your time and efforts :-) Regards, Srivatsa S. Bhat -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe sparclinux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
