On 07/20/2011 06:32 PM, Mike Turquette wrote:
> A quick poll of the ARM platforms that implement CPU Hotplug support
> shows that every platform treats CPU 0 as a special case that cannot be
> hotplugged. In fact every platform has identical code for
> platform_cpu_die which returns -EPERM in the case of CPU 0.
>
> The user-facing sysfs interfaces should reflect this by not populating
> an 'online' entry for CPU 0 at all. This better reflects reality by
> making it clear to users that CPU 0 cannot be hotplugged.
>
> This patch prevents CPU 0 from being marked as hotpluggable on all ARM
> platforms during CPU registration. This in turn prevents the creation
> of an 'online' sysfs interface for that CPU.
>
Unless there is a kernel limitation why CPU0 can't be hot unplugged,
then this should remain a platform decision. This may be another case of
everybody just copying other platforms' code, not a platform limitation.
Rob
> Signed-off-by: Mike Turquette <mturque...@ti.com>
> ---
> arch/arm/kernel/setup.c | 3 ++-
> 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c b/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c
> index ed11fb0..a5fc969 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/setup.c
> @@ -940,7 +940,8 @@ static int __init topology_init(void)
>
> for_each_possible_cpu(cpu) {
> struct cpuinfo_arm *cpuinfo = &per_cpu(cpu_data, cpu);
> - cpuinfo->cpu.hotpluggable = 1;
> + if (cpu)
> + cpuinfo->cpu.hotpluggable = 1;
> register_cpu(&cpuinfo->cpu, cpu);
> }
>
_______________________________________________
linaro-dev mailing list
linaro-dev@lists.linaro.org
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-dev
