From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from frasgout.his.huawei.com (frasgout.his.huawei.com [185.176.79.56]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0362279DAB; Fri, 11 Jul 2025 09:25:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.176.79.56 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1752225948; cv=none; b=aGwVjFLI53P9GNp0+LDrF2L8QjO//BoeqMMBLc1ad7X8Y8fn0+ZB4amjdBoleEw0ZbFNRcVckiIsvYImW2PvdCV2FiPN+l/RXyK8sYzuJaE1QG1aegZU/oaNX0cbD39aLPZbeXw+IFLWISzPGpjmn8B+JLomOL/BOM1d2gbmP50= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1752225948; c=relaxed/simple; bh=pZXe7EaL9faZo/4DiGm0OMVMrkmDlydKZaceJn88f/k=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=XBd75gJ01zkjMccvMNWBQhXhvLhjrkMeNS+GUmdHjYMYL/8f+T4H7nPN6j3pbroX3ppCX4SO+M7pqbn8mBGj5JqUUjZ8WnN6MU7h9otKMGMeBiBjCL3MwHL3Je06bDwP4zbtbbJq5sW8zthKMNmJ4VMrhfIK8UhVzHn+5sNSEzc= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=185.176.79.56 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.18.186.231]) by frasgout.his.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4bdmSw4Xb7z6L4yC; Fri, 11 Jul 2025 17:22:24 +0800 (CST) Received: from frapeml500008.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.182.85.71]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 546F21402CB; Fri, 11 Jul 2025 17:25:42 +0800 (CST) Received: from localhost (10.203.177.66) by frapeml500008.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.71) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.39; Fri, 11 Jul 2025 11:25:41 +0200 Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2025 10:25:39 +0100 From: Jonathan Cameron To: Alireza Sanaee CC: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/5] arch_topology: update CPU map to use the new API Message-ID: <20250711102539.000065b6@huawei.com> In-Reply-To: <20250708151502.561-3-alireza.sanaee@huawei.com> References: <20250708151502.561-1-alireza.sanaee@huawei.com> <20250708151502.561-3-alireza.sanaee@huawei.com> X-Mailer: Claws Mail 4.3.0 (GTK 3.24.42; x86_64-w64-mingw32) Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ClientProxiedBy: lhrpeml100002.china.huawei.com (7.191.160.241) To frapeml500008.china.huawei.com (7.182.85.71) On Tue, 8 Jul 2025 16:14:59 +0100 Alireza Sanaee wrote: > Cleans up the cpu-map generation using the created API. > > Signed-off-by: Alireza Sanaee > --- > drivers/base/arch_topology.c | 16 ++++++++-------- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c > index 1037169abb45..ccc73bfae90d 100644 > --- a/drivers/base/arch_topology.c > +++ b/drivers/base/arch_topology.c > @@ -473,19 +473,19 @@ static unsigned int max_smt_thread_num = 1; > */ > static int __init get_cpu_for_node(struct device_node *node) > { > + struct device_node *cpu_node; Initialize to NULL. Whilst we can see that it will always be initalized static analysis tools and compilers probably can't. > int cpu; > - struct device_node *cpu_node __free(device_node) = > - of_parse_phandle(node, "cpu", 0); > > - if (!cpu_node) > - return -1; > - > - cpu = of_cpu_node_to_id(cpu_node); > - if (cpu >= 0) > + cpu = of_cpu_phandle_to_id(node, &cpu_node, 0); > + if (cpu >= 0) { > topology_parse_cpu_capacity(cpu_node, cpu); > - else > + of_node_put(cpu_node); > + } else if (cpu == -ENODEV) { > pr_info("CPU node for %pOF exist but the possible cpu range is :%*pbl\n", > cpu_node, cpumask_pr_args(cpu_possible_mask)); > + of_node_put(cpu_node); > + } else > + return -1; I'd be tempted to make this more conventional with error path out of line. cpu = of_cpu_phandle_to_id(node, &cpu_node, 0); if (cpu == -ENODEV) { pr_info("CPU node for %pOF exist but the possible cpu range is :%*pbl\n", cpu_node, cpumask_pr_args(cpu_possible_mask)); return -ENODEV; } else if (cpu < 0) { ` return -1; /* to keep ABI - it's odd but not something we should touch! */ // note this avoids need for the helper to return -1, it can return -EINVAL to indicate // an invalid parameter. } topology_parse_cpu_capacity(cpu_node, cpu); of_node_put(cpu_node); return cpu; > > return cpu; > }