From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Boyd Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 03/10] ARM: smp_twd: Divorce smp_twd from local timer API Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 13:09:31 -0700 Message-ID: <5154A37B.1070407@codeaurora.org> References: <1363198676-30417-1-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org> <1363198676-30417-4-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org> <20130328152255.GD30477@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20130328152255.GD30477@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Mark Rutland Cc: "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , Tony Lindgren , "linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org" , Russell King , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" List-Id: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org On 03/28/13 08:22, Mark Rutland wrote: > This works on my A9x4 coretile, bringing CPUs up and down via > /sys/devices/system/cpu/*/online, so: > > Tested-by: Mark Rutland Thanks. I still need to resolve patch #1 though. > > Otherwise, is there any reason we couldn't now use the twd driver on a UP > system? Or would the overhead of handling frequency change make this pointless? I don't see why not but I don't have any interest in pursuing it. > > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 06:17:49PM +0000, Stephen Boyd wrote: >> diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig >> index 5b71469..5ad2ccf 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/Kconfig >> +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig >> @@ -1527,6 +1527,7 @@ config SMP >> depends on HAVE_SMP >> depends on MMU >> select HAVE_ARM_SCU if !ARCH_MSM_SCORPIONMP >> + select HAVE_ARM_TWD if (!ARCH_MSM_SCORPIONMP && !EXYNOS4_MCT) > Could you not depend on your "Push selects for TWD/SCU into machine entries" > for this? Right now the patches don't depend on the push down patch. Are you saying it would be better to depend on that patch? -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, hosted by The Linux Foundation