Brian King wrote:
Nathan Fontenot wrote:
+#include <linux/kernel.h>
+#include <linux/kref.h>
+#include <linux/notifier.h>
+#include <linux/proc_fs.h>
+#include <linux/spinlock.h>
+
+#include <asm/prom.h>
+#include <asm/machdep.h>
+#include <asm/uaccess.h>
+#include <asm/rtas.h>
+#include <asm/pSeries_reconfig.h>
+
+#define CFG_CONN_WORK_SIZE 4096
+static char workarea[CFG_CONN_WORK_SIZE];
+spinlock_t workarea_lock;
This can be:
static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(workarea_lock);
Then you can get rid of the runtime initializer.
Good catch, I will fix it in the updated patches.
+
+int release_drc(u32 drc_index)
+{
+ int dr_status, rc;
+
+ rc = rtas_call(rtas_token("get-sensor-state"), 2, 2, &dr_status,
+ DR_ENTITY_SENSE, drc_index);
+ if (rc || dr_status != DR_ENTITY_PRESENT)
+ return -1;
+
+ rc = rtas_set_indicator(ISOLATION_STATE, drc_index, ISOLATE);
+ if (rc)
+ return -1;
+
+ rc = rtas_set_indicator(ALLOCATION_STATE, drc_index, ALLOC_UNUSABLE);
+ if (rc) {
+ rtas_set_indicator(ISOLATION_STATE, drc_index, UNISOLATE);
+ return -1;
+ }
Is there a better return value here that might be more descriptive than -1?
Yes, I could return the rtas error code to the user to allow the caller to
evaluate it if they wanted to. For what I am doing I am only concerned with
success/failure so I did not deal with returning anything other than -1.
I'll update the next patch to return the rtas error for failures and 0
for success.
+
+ return 0;
+}
+
+static int pseries_dlpar_init(void)
+{
+ spin_lock_init(&workarea_lock);
+
+ if (!machine_is(pseries))
+ return 0;
What's the point of this if check if you return 0 either way?
Yes, it seems a bit odd here, but in patches later in this series I
add additional initialization steps after the machine_is() check
such that it makes sense to bail out here if the check fails.
+
+ return 0;
+}
+__initcall(pseries_dlpar_init);
Index: powerpc/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/reconfig.c
===================================================================
--- powerpc.orig/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/reconfig.c 2009-09-11
12:43:39.000000000 -0500
+++ powerpc/arch/powerpc/platforms/pseries/reconfig.c 2009-09-11
12:51:52.000000000 -0500
@@ -95,7 +95,7 @@
return parent;
}
-static BLOCKING_NOTIFIER_HEAD(pSeries_reconfig_chain);
+struct blocking_notifier_head pSeries_reconfig_chain =
BLOCKING_NOTIFIER_INIT(pSeries_reconfig_chain);
Can't this just be?
BLOCKING_NOTIFIER_HEAD(pSeries_reconfig_chain);
I think I tried this and was having issues, I don't remember what they
were though. I will try to fix this in the updated patch.
-Nathan Fontenot
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
