Hello Sebastian, Alan and others, On Wednesday 07 of September 2016 09:27:21 Sebastian Huber wrote: > > should they go to the same compilation unit as _CPU_SMP_Start_processor > > or bspsmp-init.c separate one. > > > > Or I should not care about smpfatal08 or add required symbol to it. > > It would be nice to get the smpfatal08 to work with this BSP. There is > already a special case for the the qoriq BSPs in this test, so maybe we > need something similar for the RPI.
I have cleanly divided file startup/bspsmp.c into two parts startup/bspsmp_api.c which holds SuperCore requred/defined functions which are replaced by smpfatal08 startup/bspsmp_init.c which holds IPI and secondary CPU initialization This way there is no need to polute smpfatal08 by BSP specific code. Because there is no functional/code change from already published series, I have pushed patch series into master. Thanks for review and Alan Cudmore for number of testing rounds. Best wishes, Pavel _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel