On 2014?07?08? 05:08, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:

On Wednesday, July 02, 2014 04:47:24 PM Hanjun Guo wrote:

quoted

From: Graeme Gregory <redacted>

Now ARM64 support is being added to ACPI so architecture specific
values can not be used in core ACPI code.

Following on the patch "ACPI / processor: Check if LAPIC is present
during initialization" which uses acpi_lapic in acpi_processor.c,
on ARM64 platform, GIC is used instead of local APIC, so acpi_lapic
is not a suitable value for ARM64.

What is actually important at this point is the SMPness of the system,
so introduce acpi_arch_is_smp() to be arch specific and generic.

Signed-off-by: Graeme Gregory <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Hanjun Guo <redacted>
---
 arch/ia64/include/asm/acpi.h  |    5 +++++
 arch/x86/include/asm/acpi.h   |    5 +++++
 drivers/acpi/acpi_processor.c |    2 +-
 3 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/arch/ia64/include/asm/acpi.h b/arch/ia64/include/asm/acpi.h
index 75dc59a..2fc0757 100644
--- a/arch/ia64/include/asm/acpi.h
+++ b/arch/ia64/include/asm/acpi.h

@@ -40,6 +40,11 @@ extern int acpi_lapic;
 #define acpi_noirq 0	/* ACPI always enabled on IA64 */
 #define acpi_pci_disabled 0 /* ACPI PCI always enabled on IA64 */
 #define acpi_strict 1	/* no ACPI spec workarounds on IA64 */
+
+static inline bool acpi_arch_is_smp(void)

Why this name?  In particular, local APIC being present doesn't imply SMP.

Hmm, agreed. How about acpi_has_cpu_in_madt()? As we know,
Local APIC/SAPIC in MADT stands for CPU in the system, how about
the function name above?

quoted

+{
+	return acpi_lapic;

Also

	return !!acpi_lapic;

would be cleaner IMO.

I will update it as you suggested.

Thanks
Hanjun