On 07/02/2013 08:55 PM, Scott Wood wrote:
On 07/02/2013 07:46:29 AM, Laurentiu Tudor wrote:
diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kernel/epapr_paravirt.c
b/arch/powerpc/kernel/epapr_paravirt.c
index d44a571..d05f9da 100644
--- a/arch/powerpc/kernel/epapr_paravirt.c
+++ b/arch/powerpc/kernel/epapr_paravirt.c
@@ -30,38 +30,45 @@ extern u32 epapr_ev_idle_start[];
bool epapr_paravirt_enabled;
-static int __init epapr_paravirt_init(void)
+static int __init early_init_dt_scan_epapr(unsigned long node,
+ const char *uname,
+ int depth, void *data)
{
- struct device_node *hyper_node;
- const u32 *insts;
- int len, i;
+ const u32 *instrs;
+ unsigned long len;
+ int i;
- hyper_node = of_find_node_by_path("/hypervisor");
- if (!hyper_node)
- return -ENODEV;
+ if (!of_flat_dt_is_compatible(node, "epapr,hypervisor-1"))
+ return 0;
QEMU doesn't set "epapr,hypervisor-1" but it still uses the same hcall
mechanism. The compatible that QEMU sets is "linux,kvm". Perhaps QEMU
should change, but we'd still like to be compatible with older QEMUs.
How is this change related to moving initialization earlier?
Just a (extra-)check to see that i'm on the right node.
But considering your mention on qemu/kvm using a different compatible
i'm thinking of dropping it and only try reading the
"hcall-instructions" property.
- insts = of_get_property(hyper_node, "hcall-instructions", &len);
- if (!insts)
- return -ENODEV;
+#if !defined(CONFIG_64BIT) || defined(CONFIG_PPC_BOOK3E_64)
+ if (of_get_flat_dt_prop(node, "has-idle", NULL))
+ ppc_md.power_save = epapr_ev_idle;
+#endif
Why are you doing this before processing hcall-instructions?
Nothing of importance. The code seemed more clear to me.
---
Best Regards, Laurentiu
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
