On 16/08/13 13:32, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 09:48 +0100, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:
>
>>> Naming is a bit gross. You might want to make it clearer that
>>> we are talking about CPU IDs in the device-tree here.
>>>
>> Any particular preference to the name or just a no
On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 09:48 +0100, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:
> > Naming is a bit gross. You might want to make it clearer that
> > we are talking about CPU IDs in the device-tree here.
> >
> Any particular preference to the name or just a note is sufficient.
> Also unlike PPC, in ARM we don't
On 16/08/13 05:49, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 18:09 +0100, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:
>> From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha
>>
>> Currently different drivers requiring to access cpu device node are
>> parsing the device tree themselves. Since the ordering in the DT need
>> no
On 16/08/13 05:50, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 18:09 +0100, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:
>>/* Check for ibm,ppc-interrupt-server#s. If it doesn't exist
>> * fallback to "reg" property and assume no threads
>> */
>> -
>
> O
On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 18:09 +0100, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:
>/* Check for ibm,ppc-interrupt-server#s. If it doesn't exist
> * fallback to "reg" property and assume no threads
> */
> -
Oh and I forgot ... that comment is now wrong, since your co
On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 18:09 +0100, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote:
> From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha
>
> Currently different drivers requiring to access cpu device node are
> parsing the device tree themselves. Since the ordering in the DT need
> not match the logical cpu ordering, the parsing logic nee
