Re: [PATCH v4 01/14] MIPS: CPS: Add a couple of multi-cluster utility functions

[Thomas Bogendoerfer]

On Sat, May 11, 2024 at 12:43:28PM +0200, Aleksandar Rikalo wrote:
> From: Paul Burton <paulburton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> This patch introduces a couple of utility functions which help later
> patches with introducing support for multi-cluster systems.
> 
>  - mips_cps_multicluster_cpus() allows its caller to determine whether
>    the system includes CPUs spread across multiple clusters. This is
>    useful because in some cases behaviour can be more optimal taking
>    this knowledge into account. The means by which we check this is
>    dependent upon the way we probe CPUs & assign their numbers, so
>    keeping this knowledge confined here in arch/mips/ seems appropriate.
> 
>  - mips_cps_first_online_in_cluster() allows its caller to determine
>    whether it is running upon the first CPU online within its cluster.
>    This information is useful in cases where some cluster-wide
>    configuration may need to occur, but should not be repeated if
>    another CPU in the cluster is already online. Similarly to the above
>    this is determined based upon knowledge of CPU numbering so it makes
>    sense to keep that knowledge in arch/mips/. The function is defined
>    in mips-cm.c rather than in asm/mips-cps.h in order to allow us to
>    use asm/cpu-info.h & linux/smp.h without encountering an include
>    nightmare.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Paul Burton <paulburton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Chao-ying Fu <cfu@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Dragan Mladjenovic <dragan.mladjenovic@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Aleksandar Rikalo <aleksandar.rikalo@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  arch/mips/include/asm/mips-cps.h | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  arch/mips/kernel/mips-cm.c       | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>  2 files changed, 75 insertions(+)

applied to mips-next with a #include <linux/cpumask.h> added to
make it compile with my malta config.

Thomas.

-- 
Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a
good idea.                                                [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]