From: Suzuki.Poulose@arm•com (Suzuki K. Poulose)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists•infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v5 1/8] arm64: Get rid of struct cpu_table
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 17:11:02 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55104926.1060901@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1426690527-14258-2-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
On 18/03/15 14:55, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm•com>
>
> struct cpu_table is an artifact left from the (very) early days of
> the arm64 port, and its only real use is to allow the most beautiful
> "AArch64 Processor" string to be displayed at boot time.
>
> Really? Yes, really.
>
> Let's get rid of it. In order to avoid another BogoMips-gate, the
> aforementioned string is preserved.
>
> Acked-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm•com>
> Acked-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro•org>
> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm•com>
> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro•org>
> ---
> arch/arm64/include/asm/cputable.h | 30 ----------------
> arch/arm64/kernel/Makefile | 2 +-
> arch/arm64/kernel/asm-offsets.c | 4 ---
> arch/arm64/kernel/cputable.c | 33 -----------------
> arch/arm64/kernel/head.S | 76 +++------------------------------------
> arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c | 16 ++-------
> 6 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 153 deletions(-)
> delete mode 100644 arch/arm64/include/asm/cputable.h
> delete mode 100644 arch/arm64/kernel/cputable.c
...
> --- a/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
> +++ b/arch/arm64/kernel/setup.c
> @@ -50,7 +50,6 @@
> #include <asm/cpu.h>
> #include <asm/cputype.h>
> #include <asm/elf.h>
> -#include <asm/cputable.h>
> #include <asm/cpufeature.h>
> #include <asm/cpu_ops.h>
> #include <asm/sections.h>
> @@ -83,7 +82,6 @@ unsigned int compat_elf_hwcap2 __read_mostly;
>
> DECLARE_BITMAP(cpu_hwcaps, ARM64_NCAPS);
>
> -static const char *cpu_name;
> phys_addr_t __fdt_pointer __initdata;
>
> /*
> @@ -209,22 +207,12 @@ static void __init smp_build_mpidr_hash(void)
>
> static void __init setup_processor(void)
> {
> - struct cpu_info *cpu_info;
> u64 features, block;
> u32 cwg;
> int cls;
>
> - cpu_info = lookup_processor_type(read_cpuid_id());
> - if (!cpu_info) {
> - printk("CPU configuration botched (ID %08x), unable to continue.\n",
> - read_cpuid_id());
> - while (1);
> - }
> -
> - cpu_name = cpu_info->cpu_name;
> -
> - printk("CPU: %s [%08x] revision %d\n",
> - cpu_name, read_cpuid_id(), read_cpuid_id() & 15);
> + printk("CPU: AArch64 Processor [%08x] revision %d\n",
> + read_cpuid_id(), read_cpuid_id() & 15);
>
While we are at it, does it make sense to change
s/CPU/Boot CPU/
to make it clear on a big.Little system ?
Suzuki
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-23 17:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-03-18 14:55 [PATCH v5 0/8] arm64: head.S cleanup Ard Biesheuvel
2015-03-18 14:55 ` [PATCH v5 1/8] arm64: Get rid of struct cpu_table Ard Biesheuvel
2015-03-18 16:11 ` Mark Rutland
2015-03-23 17:11 ` Suzuki K. Poulose [this message]
2015-03-23 17:38 ` Will Deacon
2015-03-23 17:41 ` Suzuki K. Poulose
2015-03-18 14:55 ` [PATCH v5 2/8] arm64: add macros for common adrp usages Ard Biesheuvel
2015-03-18 17:54 ` Mark Rutland
2015-03-18 17:56 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-03-18 18:05 ` Mark Rutland
2015-03-18 18:06 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-03-18 14:55 ` [PATCH v5 3/8] arm64: remove processor_id Ard Biesheuvel
2015-03-18 14:55 ` [PATCH v5 4/8] arm64: remove __switch_data object from head.S Ard Biesheuvel
2015-03-18 14:55 ` [PATCH v5 5/8] arm64: use PC-relative reference for secondary_holding_pen_release Ard Biesheuvel
2015-03-18 14:55 ` [PATCH v5 6/8] arm64: merge __enable_mmu and __turn_mmu_on Ard Biesheuvel
2015-03-18 14:55 ` [PATCH v5 7/8] arm64: remove __calc_phys_offset Ard Biesheuvel
2015-03-18 14:55 ` [PATCH v5 8/8] arm64: enforce x1|x2|x3 == 0 upon kernel entry as per boot protocol Ard Biesheuvel
2015-03-18 18:13 ` Mark Rutland
2015-03-18 18:16 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-03-18 18:46 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-03-18 18:57 ` Mark Rutland
2015-03-18 19:55 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-03-18 20:24 ` Mark Rutland
2015-03-19 7:30 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-03-19 10:35 ` Mark Rutland
2015-03-19 10:38 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-03-19 10:41 ` Mark Rutland
2015-03-19 11:00 ` [PATCH v3] " Ard Biesheuvel
2015-03-19 13:36 ` Mark Rutland
2015-03-20 11:31 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-03-20 11:41 ` Mark Rutland
2015-03-20 11:45 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-03-20 12:25 ` Will Deacon
2015-03-20 12:50 ` Ard Biesheuvel
2015-03-18 22:26 ` [PATCH v5 8/8] " Peter Maydell
2015-03-18 18:23 ` [PATCH v5 0/8] arm64: head.S cleanup Mark Rutland
2015-03-18 18:28 ` Ard Biesheuvel
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=55104926.1060901@arm.com \
--to=suzuki.poulose@arm$(echo .)com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists$(echo .)infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox