Kyösti Mälkki has posted comments on this change. ( https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/43310 )
Change subject: soc/amd/picasso: Add dummy spinlock for psp_verstage ......................................................................
Patch Set 2:
(1 comment)
Patch Set 2:
Patch Set 2:
(1 comment)
So.. two hours and five minutes from publish to submit?
Yes, this was to fix a breakage that would have hit in chromeos, and we followed the procedure by getting 3 +2s.
Typically this 3x +2 was only pulled for breakage that already had happened in master.
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/43310/2/src/soc/amd/picasso/psp_ver... File src/soc/amd/picasso/psp_verstage/include/arch/smp/spinlock.h:
https://review.coreboot.org/c/coreboot/+/43310/2/src/soc/amd/picasso/psp_ver... PS2, Line 15: #define boot_cpu() 1
Can we fix these up by having a notion of STAGE_SUPPORTS_SMP ? That we can provide default implement […]
Well that would be preferred. My questiona are really:
1) Why do whe have the <smp/node.h> include here? 2) We have symmetry expectations for headers and <smp/spinlock.h> is not the one to provide boot_cpu() implementation. 3) Commit message completely ignores adding boot_cpu(). The connection with spinlocks is too remote to omit that. 4) Do we really want to allow preprocess alias proper function prototypes?