Subject: [PATCH 1/6] ARM: Add inline function smp_cpu() for early init testing

From: [email-masked] (Tony Lindgren)
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2010 12:26:59 -0700

* Tony Lindgren <[email-masked]> [100902 10:35]:
> * Russell King - ARM Linux <[email-masked]> [100902 10:00]:
> > On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 09:18:47AM -0700, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > 
> > > --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/smp_plat.h
> > > +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/smp_plat.h
> > > @@ -39,4 +39,20 @@ static inline int cache_ops_need_broadcast(void)
> > >  #define UP(instr...)	_str(instr)
> > >  #endif
> > >  
> > > +static inline int smp_on_up(void)
> > > +{
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP_ON_UP
> > > +	int smp_on_up;
> > > +
> > > +	asm(							\
> > > +		SMP(mov	%0, #0)					\
> > > +		UP(mov	%0, #1)					\
> > > +		: "=r" (smp_on_up));
> > > +
> > > +	return smp_on_up;
> > > +#else
> > > +	return 0;
> > > +#endif
> > 
> > I think this is the wrong approach - rather than a function which tells us
> > just if we are a SMP kernel running on UP, why not something which returns
> > whether we're running on SMP and use that to eliminate some of these ifdefs?
> 
> Sure. Will has something like this in his patches:
> 
> static inline int cpu_is_part_of_mp_system(void)
> {
> 	u32 mpidr;
> 	asm volatile("mrc p15, 0, %0, c0, c0, 5" : "=r" (mpidr));
> 	return (mpidr >> 31) ? !(mpidr >> 30) : 0;
> }
> 
> BTW, so far looks like we should only need this during init to set up things.

Here's this one updated to replace smp_cpu() instead of smp_on_up().

Tony
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smp-cpu.patch
Type: text/x-diff
Size: 2042 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20100902/d339b7c4/attachment.bin>