On Mon, Oct 05, 2015 at 06:02:01PM +0100, Suzuki K. Poulose wrote:
> @@ -647,16 +648,119 @@ void check_cpu_capabilities(const struct
> arm64_cpu_capabilities *caps,
> cpus_set_cap(caps[i].capability);
> }
>
> - /* second pass allows enable() to consider interacting capabilities */
> - for (i = 0; caps[i].desc; i++) {
> - if (cpus_have_cap(caps[i].capability) && caps[i].enable)
> - caps[i].enable();
> + /*
> + * second pass allows enable() invoked on active each CPU
> + * to consider interacting capabilities.
> + */
This comment doesn't read properly.
> -void check_local_cpu_features(void)
> +/*
> + * Park the CPU which doesn't have the capability as advertised
> + * by the system.
> + */
> +static void fail_incapable_cpu(char *cap_type,
> + const struct arm64_cpu_capabilities *cap)
> +{
> + /*XXX: Are we really safe to call printk here ? */
> + pr_crit("FATAL: CPU%d is missing %s : %s \n",
> + smp_processor_id(), cap_type, cap->desc);
I'm not sure it's safe either, basically we haven't fully brought the
CPU into the system.
> + asm volatile(
> + " 1: wfe \n\t"
> + " b 1b\n"
> + );
> +}
We could add a wfi as well in the mix.
However, if we have PSCI, we should use it to park the CPUs back into
firmware (via cpu_operations.cpu_die), and only use the above loop if
that fails.
> +/*
> + * Run through the enabled system capabilities and enable() it on this CPU.
s/it/them/
--
Catalin
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
