On 02/13/15 15:01, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 09:44:50PM +0000, Magnus Damm wrote: >> Also, based on the comment in mcpm_cpu_can_disable() it looks like the >> PSCI hook may be executed once only with your change in place? >> Hopefully PSCI is OK not being invoked for every CPU shutdown. > This is why I've said (in the parent thread) that I'm not happy to > apply this patch. Mark Rutland has indicated that he has MCPM cases > where the CPUs which can be disabled changes dynamically according > to the secure firmware requirements, and ripping out todays > infrastructure in light of that, only to have to add it back again > later makes no sense.
Putting it back is not hard. And the infrastructure is not currently used for these purposes so renaming it is appropriate. I can leave it in place if you like, i.e. make a new op for cpu_can_disable and repoint mcpm's mcpm_cpu_disable() at it. Then when mcpm gets migrate support it can actually implement a cpu_disable op. > > However, cleaning things up by removing unnecessary cpu_disable > methods is a good thing to do irrespective of that. > That's fine I can split it out. -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
