From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A964C10F13 for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 18:14:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 659C52084D for ; Thu, 11 Apr 2019 18:14:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key) header.d=wdc.com header.i=@wdc.com header.b="S+q4HEJd" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726777AbfDKSOR (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Apr 2019 14:14:17 -0400 Received: from esa2.hgst.iphmx.com ([68.232.143.124]:52670 "EHLO esa2.hgst.iphmx.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726538AbfDKSOQ (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Apr 2019 14:14:16 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=wdc.com; i=@wdc.com; q=dns/txt; s=dkim.wdc.com; t=1555006457; x=1586542457; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=TA1nweJzazRcI8nGG0xaae8sgqSHrilFQeoJtWiH2Y8=; b=S+q4HEJdLGDC+LGyh+J/4YLaNRr7n+F9Q8/cSFBCrFaCMyUwCPQIjjEX Txqr9v8yKgMzkPwuKSXdmvVu/0DdoyvNrC5dSDPGmIOspYlPVDIplujSC GrqbCD6DUhq+4oVz0PHKbCwSuBgHHtFlhceWK4XBnrg2L+WfmPdE/s4Kh QCinwoHgFSi7SSdSVg793g+p3GzcNkUf6kqEDOEcCBu6zIQ4EB8gZjKFF GQw7urfGv4LWPPP6IUsVabM5Xhjpgv6OzXP54IipmkuS8+dDnFmsRDl6A u6kjKR11kzSigPFaIcfbNv3vNc2Z/2QpGiZWSdbNH3iJoL9bUqX1SSJnM Q==; X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.60,338,1549900800"; d="scan'208";a="204574358" Received: from uls-op-cesaip01.wdc.com (HELO uls-op-cesaep01.wdc.com) ([199.255.45.14]) by ob1.hgst.iphmx.com with ESMTP; 12 Apr 2019 02:14:10 +0800 IronPort-SDR: ijQhTNZjDFqgqAnS3VY2Nem3JvEDlFzV+iul+1w4tHde89Lh14kUYMFWj5Cwt8hvsBFUN/p/xQ 7lUr/HccH8hV20lmFg+9DdT+ilIFgyPKgka+HID8LmhgTmHs52IPDwj0ZfCSyTk5Jj+pW3LmDU KK22LTMwyNgdDcyV/3LDhmj4JdmE4mST7nQ69vRGKNjIqVdpmKnLJAb+PMUtXaKxKHhbglgavO 94bzrxTkGVUm0Iz8X1Zp5bPzV3cs5iLpOICnvr3i6mSzRdUEPB/930PAMqGt4yRZ2pyMbx8sX8 ildTM8Z7VB9DN3CIaDKyvnkp Received: from uls-op-cesaip02.wdc.com ([10.248.3.37]) by uls-op-cesaep01.wdc.com with ESMTP; 11 Apr 2019 10:51:02 -0700 IronPort-SDR: ElvWdcaZMzVpcsef1OmngfWr+osjSLfdQXNLcrk/lNFkajTJlJZd9dBiZfXJkXZGHKYkAVSABB 3LrXyxlWwgw9YtCu7ox59/ZX0UKof7p/fxMhFG4nipAy6B9o1KZlR2FJh2+zKNJpvhpLcc6vhH kUZEYx5bw4p54PBMkwmLGIvLEOzQe+2BiYaOU2UaaT7Ly5hQMulH0F/FiSV5YoRAE0B977Ijse I1qsLZIf5xMfwldJONebJi86MKM/W2gR7Syqf6BRVVNW32yi3ybGr7f9+vS34/8RJ3rM7XRPd7 19Y= Received: from r6220.sdcorp.global.sandisk.com (HELO [192.168.1.6]) ([10.196.157.143]) by uls-op-cesaip02.wdc.com with ESMTP; 11 Apr 2019 11:14:10 -0700 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] RISC-V: Fix of_get_cpu_node usage To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Albert Ou , Andreas Schwab , Anup Patel , Dmitriy Cherkasov , Johan Hovold , "linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org" , Palmer Dabbelt , Paul Walmsley References: <20190410230443.15729-1-atish.patra@wdc.com> <20190410230443.15729-3-atish.patra@wdc.com> <20190411065904.GC29422@infradead.org> From: Atish Patra Message-ID: <2c078b17-625b-b3d0-7914-9cb2d05580e2@wdc.com> Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2019 11:14:09 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.6.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190411065904.GC29422@infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 4/10/19 11:59 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 04:04:41PM -0700, Atish Patra wrote: >> of_get_cpu_node expects a logical cpu id not a hartid. > > But only because you changed that with your patch 1, so it should > be folded into that. > Yes. I should merge this to patch 1. Otherwise, git bisect will have issues later with patch 1. Regards, Atish