On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Hongbo Zhang <macro.wav...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 19, 2016 at 12:38 PM, Chen-Yu Tsai <w...@csie.org> wrote: >> The original PSCI implementation assumed CONFIG_ARMV7_PSCI_NR_CPUS=4. >> Add this as a fallback value in case platforms have not defined it. >> >> Signed-off-by: Chen-Yu Tsai <w...@csie.org> >> --- >> arch/arm/include/asm/config.h | 5 +++++ >> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/config.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/config.h >> index 435fc4521c2e..f70302dfc4f1 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/config.h >> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/config.h >> @@ -23,4 +23,9 @@ >> #include <asm/arch/config.h> >> #endif >> >> +/* Original code assumed 4 CPUs */ >> +#ifndef CONFIG_ARMV7_PSCI_NR_CPUS >> +#define CONFIG_ARMV7_PSCI_NR_CPUS 4 > > This makes platforms which have there own macro definition embarrassed > somehow. > we should add > #define CONFIG_ARMV7_PSCI_NR_CPUS CONFIG_MAX_CPUS > if this patch merged. > some of our platform even has 16 cores.
I'm not sure how CONFIG_MAX_CPUS is used though. Thinking about this, my first approach is probably wrong. I should add missing PSCI_NR_CPUS for the existing platforms. New platforms should define it themselves when enabling PSCI. Failure to do so will result in a compile error, rather than having a fallback value that subtly breaks later on. Regards ChenYu > >> +#endif >> + >> #endif >> -- >> 2.8.1 >> _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
