Re: [patch v11 13/23] ACPI / processor: Introduce phys_cpuid_t for CPU hardware ID

[Hanjun Guo]

On 2015å03æ26æ 11:49, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> On 2015/3/26 1:21, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 10:02:46PM +0800, Hanjun Guo wrote:
> > > CPU hardware ID (phys_id) is defined as u32 in structure acpi_processor,
> > > but phys_id is used as int in acpi processor driver, so it will lead to
> > > some inconsistence for the drivers.
> > >
> > > Furthermore, to cater for ACPI arch ports that implement 64 bits CPU
> > > ids a generic CPU physical id type is required.
> > >
> > > So introduce typedef u32 phys_cpuid_t in a common file, and introduce
> > > a macro PHYS_CPUID_INVALID as (phys_cpuid_t)(-1) if it's not defined
> > > by other archs, this will solve the inconsistence in acpi processor driver,
> > > and will prepare for the ACPI on ARM64 for the 64 bit CPU hardware ID
> > > in the following patch.
> > >
> > > CC: Rafael J Wysocki <rjw@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Suggested-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx>
> > > Reviewed-by: Grant Likely <grant.likely@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Acked-by: Sudeep Holla <sudeep.holla@xxxxxxx>
> > > Acked-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi <lorenzo.pieralisi@xxxxxxx>
> > > Acked-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx>
> > > [hj: reworked cpu physid map return codes]
> > > Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > BTW, am I still the author of this patch? If yes, it's missing a From:
> > line.
>
> Oops, you should be the author, can Will fix this in his tree?
>
> > > --- a/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c
> > > @@ -170,7 +170,7 @@ static int acpi_processor_hotadd_init(struct acpi_processor *pr)
> > >   	acpi_status status;
> > >   	int ret;
> > >
> > > -	if (pr->phys_id == -1)
> > > +	if (pr->phys_id == PHYS_CPUID_INVALID)
> > >   		return -ENODEV;
> > If PHYS_CPUID_INVALID is the same as INVALID_HWID, we should get rid of
> > the latter in the arm64 code (as a subsequent clean-up patch).
>
> OK, I'm preparing a patch set to introduce invalid_phys_cpuid() and invalid_logical_cpuid()
> to remove the direct comparison of PHYS_CPUID_INVALID and -1 in ACPI processor drivers,
> which is suggested by Rafael, I will cleanup PHYS_CPUID_INVALID in this patch set.

I met difficulty to do so, because we use

+#ifndef PHYS_CPUID_INVALID
+typedef u32 phys_cpuid_t;
+#define PHYS_CPUID_INVALID (phys_cpuid_t)(-1)
+#endif

in the common head file linux/acpi.h, we need macro
PHYS_CPUID_INVALID to identify if phys_cpuid_t is typedefed
for different arch, so if we want remove PHYS_CPUID_INVALID
for ARM64, we need to got back to typedef phys_cpuid_t for
each arch using ACPI. which means that

+typedef u32 phys_cpuid_t;  for ia64 and x86,

and
+typedef u64 phys_cpuid_t;  for arm64

and
+#define PHYS_CPUID_INVALID (phys_cpuid_t)(-1)
in this linux/acpi.h for common use.

Rafael, would you mind doing so?

Thanks
Hanjun

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/