| Message ID | 1382358632-32762-1-git-send-email-Sudeep.KarkadaNagesha@arm.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
Hi, I was just looking in devtree.c and I noticed this seems to have fallen by the wayside. Given that this fixes a possible bug and there have been no negative comments, I think it's good for mainline. Could you place this in the patch system, assuming Russell has no comments? Cheers, Mark. On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 01:30:32PM +0100, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote: > From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <sudeep.karkadanagesha@arm.com> > > The MPIDR contains specific bitfields(MPIDR.Aff{2..0}) which uniquely > identify a CPU, in addition to some non-identifying information and > reserved bits. The ARM cpu binding defines the 'reg' property to only > contain the affinity bits, and any cpu nodes with other bits set in > their 'reg' entry are skipped. > > As such it is not necessary to mask the phys_id with MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK, > and doing so could lead to matching erroneous CPU nodes in the device > tree. This patch removes the masking of the physical identifier. > > Signed-off-by: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <sudeep.karkadanagesha@arm.com> > Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> > Cc: Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> > --- > arch/arm/kernel/devtree.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/devtree.c b/arch/arm/kernel/devtree.c > index f35906b..41960fb 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/kernel/devtree.c > +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/devtree.c > @@ -171,7 +171,7 @@ void __init arm_dt_init_cpu_maps(void) > > bool arch_match_cpu_phys_id(int cpu, u64 phys_id) > { > - return (phys_id & MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK) == cpu_logical_map(cpu); > + return phys_id == cpu_logical_map(cpu); > } > > /** > -- > 1.8.1.2 >
Hi Russell, On 07/01/14 16:58, Mark Rutland wrote: > Hi, > > I was just looking in devtree.c and I noticed this seems to have fallen > by the wayside. Given that this fixes a possible bug and there have been > no negative comments, I think it's good for mainline. > > Could you place this in the patch system, assuming Russell has no > comments? > Can I put this in patch tracker if you have no objections ? Regards, Sudeep > Cheers, > Mark. > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 01:30:32PM +0100, Sudeep KarkadaNagesha wrote: >> From: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <sudeep.karkadanagesha@arm.com> >> >> The MPIDR contains specific bitfields(MPIDR.Aff{2..0}) which uniquely >> identify a CPU, in addition to some non-identifying information and >> reserved bits. The ARM cpu binding defines the 'reg' property to only >> contain the affinity bits, and any cpu nodes with other bits set in >> their 'reg' entry are skipped. >> >> As such it is not necessary to mask the phys_id with MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK, >> and doing so could lead to matching erroneous CPU nodes in the device >> tree. This patch removes the masking of the physical identifier. >> >> Signed-off-by: Sudeep KarkadaNagesha <sudeep.karkadanagesha@arm.com> >> Acked-by: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> >> Cc: Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk> >> --- >> arch/arm/kernel/devtree.c | 2 +- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/devtree.c b/arch/arm/kernel/devtree.c >> index f35906b..41960fb 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/devtree.c >> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/devtree.c >> @@ -171,7 +171,7 @@ void __init arm_dt_init_cpu_maps(void) >> >> bool arch_match_cpu_phys_id(int cpu, u64 phys_id) >> { >> - return (phys_id & MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK) == cpu_logical_map(cpu); >> + return phys_id == cpu_logical_map(cpu); >> } >> >> /** >> -- >> 1.8.1.2 >>
On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 10:58:34AM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote: > Hi Russell, > > On 07/01/14 16:58, Mark Rutland wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I was just looking in devtree.c and I noticed this seems to have fallen > > by the wayside. Given that this fixes a possible bug and there have been > > no negative comments, I think it's good for mainline. > > > > Could you place this in the patch system, assuming Russell has no > > comments? > > > > Can I put this in patch tracker if you have no objections ? Yes please.
On 08/01/14 18:02, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Wed, Jan 08, 2014 at 10:58:34AM +0000, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> Hi Russell, >> >> On 07/01/14 16:58, Mark Rutland wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I was just looking in devtree.c and I noticed this seems to have fallen >>> by the wayside. Given that this fixes a possible bug and there have been >>> no negative comments, I think it's good for mainline. >>> >>> Could you place this in the patch system, assuming Russell has no >>> comments? >>> >> >> Can I put this in patch tracker if you have no objections ? > > Yes please. > Thanks and it's done(7934/1). Regards, Sudeep
diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/devtree.c b/arch/arm/kernel/devtree.c index f35906b..41960fb 100644 --- a/arch/arm/kernel/devtree.c +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/devtree.c @@ -171,7 +171,7 @@ void __init arm_dt_init_cpu_maps(void) bool arch_match_cpu_phys_id(int cpu, u64 phys_id) { - return (phys_id & MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK) == cpu_logical_map(cpu); + return phys_id == cpu_logical_map(cpu); } /**