Thank you. I will test this patch tomorrow. — Christian
Sent from my iPhone > On 31. Oct 2018, at 15:42, Rob Herring <[email protected]> wrote: > > In most cases, nodes with 'status = "disabled";' are treated as if the > node is not present though it is a common bug to forget to check that. > However, cpu nodes are different in that "disabled" simply means offline > and the OS can bring the CPU core online. Commit f1f207e43b8a ("of: Add > cpu node iterator for_each_of_cpu_node()") followed the common behavior > of ignoring disabled cpu nodes. This breaks some powerpc systems (at > least NXP P50XX/e5500). Fix this by dropping the status check. > > Fixes: 651d44f9679c ("of: use for_each_of_cpu_node iterator") > Fixes: f1f207e43b8a ("of: Add cpu node iterator for_each_of_cpu_node()") > Reported-by: Michael Ellerman <[email protected]> > Cc: Christian Zigotzky <[email protected]> > Cc: Frank Rowand <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <[email protected]> > --- > drivers/of/base.c | 2 -- > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/of/base.c b/drivers/of/base.c > index cc62da278663..e47c5ce6cd58 100644 > --- a/drivers/of/base.c > +++ b/drivers/of/base.c > @@ -776,8 +776,6 @@ struct device_node *of_get_next_cpu_node(struct > device_node *prev) > if (!(of_node_name_eq(next, "cpu") || > (next->type && !of_node_cmp(next->type, "cpu")))) > continue; > - if (!__of_device_is_available(next)) > - continue; > if (of_node_get(next)) > break; > } > -- > 2.19.1 >
