Aggrwal Poonam-B10812 wrote:
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Wood Scott-B07421
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 2:39 AM
>> To: Aggrwal Poonam-B10812
>> Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de
>> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/2] Removed CONFIG_NUM_CPUS for
>> 85xx and 86xx Freescale processors.
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 21, 2009 at 04:17:43PM +0530, Poonam Aggrwal wrote:
>>> +int cpu_numcores() {
>>> + struct cpu_type *cpu;
>>> + cpu = gd->cpu;
>>> + return cpu->num_cores;
>>> +}
>> Shouldn't this check CONFIG_MP and return 1 if not set?
>> Otherwise you get a weird mix of MP and UP.
>>
>> The checks to warn the user of a UP u-boot on an MP chip
>> would have to reference cpu->num_cores directly, or we could
>> add a hard_cpu_numcores(), or similar.
> This function's intent is to just return the number of cores that the
> system has.
> This is more of kind of probong the actual hardware.
> The CONFIG_MP flag will take care of all the multicore stuff in u-boot.
>> -Scott
But you have places that call cpu_numcores() and do per-core stuff that
don't check CONFIG_MP, as far as I can tell.
-Scott
_______________________________________________
U-Boot mailing list
U-Boot@lists.denx.de
http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
