# Re: \[UPDATED PATCH 21/27\] sparc32, smpboot: Use generic SMP booting infrastructure

- From: Srivatsa S. Bhat \<hidden\>
- Date: 2012-06-02 16:35:46 
- List: linux-arch
- Page: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-arch/2012/06/3873555
- Thread: https://ratatoskr.run/linux-arch/2012/06/3873118/t.md

```text
On 06/02/2012 09:53 PM, Sam Ravnborg wrote:

>>
>> As I mentioned in my other mail, I am thinking of changing them to
>> arch_cpu_pre_starting(), arch_cpu_pre_online() and arch_cpu_post_online().
>> Let me know what you think of those names.
> Much better than "__" - so if none of the guys that excel in core
> code objects go for that.
> 


Ok..

>> Would you kindly add a changelog and your sign-off to this patch?
> Will do in next revision.
> 


Great!

> ...
> 
> Thanks for the throughfull review.
> I will address all points - including passing the pointer down,
> as I assume you have some future plans with that pointer.
> 
>>
>> I still didn't get how this solves the original problem of
>> not having sparc_cpu_model set to sparc_leon. You mentioned
>> that by the time we reach leon_smp_cpu_startup, that variable
>> is not set. Even inside leon_smp_cpu_startup, I don't immediately
>> see where it is set. Am I missing something?
> 
> After looking more closely at the code it is my understanding
> that a leon CPU when started will actually jump to the reset
> vector and start from there.
> So the secondary CPU's will run long time after
> sparc_cpu_model is set so we can safely use it.
> 
> The sun based cpu will in comparsion jump to
> an address supplied to a prom call - so they do not
> jump to the reset vector.
> But they also have sparc_cpu_model set so no problem there
> either.
> 


Ok..

> All this are my deductions from reading the code - but this
> is not an area I have looked at otherwise..
> 
> I may not find time today to cook up a new version of
> the patch - but then you will have it tomorrow.
> 


Sure! Once again, thanks a lot for your time and efforts :-)

Regards,
Srivatsa S. Bhat
```