irqchip: gic: Don't complain in gic_get_cpumask() if UP system

Commit Message

Nicolas Pitre July 17, 2013, 10:34 p.m. UTC

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:

> On 07/12/13 05:10, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> > On 07/12, Javi Merino wrote:
> >> I agree, we should drop the check.  It's annoying in uniprocessors and
> >> unlikely to be found in the real world unless your gic entry in the dt
> >> is wrong.

And that's a likely outcome in the real world.

> >>
> > Ok. How about this?
> 
> Any comments?

What about this instead:



Nicolas

Comments

Stephen Boyd July 17, 2013, 10:36 p.m. UTC | #1

On 07/17/13 15:34, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>
>> On 07/12/13 05:10, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>> On 07/12, Javi Merino wrote:
>>>> I agree, we should drop the check.  It's annoying in uniprocessors and
>>>> unlikely to be found in the real world unless your gic entry in the dt
>>>> is wrong.
> And that's a likely outcome in the real world.
>
>>> Ok. How about this?
>> Any comments?
> What about this instead:

Unfortunately arm64 doesn't have SMP_ON_UP. It sounds like you preferred
the first patch using num_possible_cpus()

>
> diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
> index 19ceaa60e0..86d21bc6cb 100644
> --- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
> +++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
> @@ -368,7 +368,7 @@ static u8 gic_get_cpumask(struct gic_chip_data *gic)
>  			break;
>  	}
>  
> -	if (!mask)
> +	if (is_smp() && !mask)
>  		pr_crit("GIC CPU mask not found - kernel will fail to boot.\n");
>  
>  	return mask;
>
>
> Nicolas

Nicolas Pitre July 17, 2013, 10:53 p.m. UTC | #2

On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:

> On 07/17/13 15:34, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >
> >> On 07/12/13 05:10, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >>> On 07/12, Javi Merino wrote:
> >>>> I agree, we should drop the check.  It's annoying in uniprocessors and
> >>>> unlikely to be found in the real world unless your gic entry in the dt
> >>>> is wrong.
> > And that's a likely outcome in the real world.
> >
> >>> Ok. How about this?
> >> Any comments?
> > What about this instead:
> 
> Unfortunately arm64 doesn't have SMP_ON_UP. 

And why does that matter?

> It sounds like you preferred the first patch using num_possible_cpus()

Probably, yes.  I didn't follow the early conversation though.


Nicolas

Patch

diff --git a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
index 19ceaa60e0..86d21bc6cb 100644
--- a/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
+++ b/drivers/irqchip/irq-gic.c
@@ -368,7 +368,7 @@  static u8 gic_get_cpumask(struct gic_chip_data *gic)
 			break;
 	}
 
-	if (!mask)
+	if (is_smp() && !mask)
 		pr_crit("GIC CPU mask not found - kernel will fail to boot.\n");
 
 	return mask;