On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 03:51:02PM +0000, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Jan 2014, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 06:08:17AM +0000, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > ARM and ARM64 are the only two architectures implementing
> > > arch_cpu_idle_prepare() simply to call local_fiq_enable().
> > >
> > > We have secondary_start_kernel() already calling local_fiq_enable() and
> > > this is done a second time in arch_cpu_idle_prepare() in that case. And
> > > enabling FIQs has nothing to do with idling the CPU to start with.
> > >
> > > So let's introduce init_fiq_boot_cpu() to take care of FIQs on the boot
> > > CPU and remove arch_cpu_idle_prepare(). This is now done a bit earlier
> > > at late_initcall time but this shouldn't make a difference in practice
> > > given that FIQs are not currently used on ARM64.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <n...@linaro.org>
> >
> > For arm64, we could simply remove any reference to FIQs. I'm not aware
> > of anyone using them.
>
> OK. What if I sumply remove arch_cpu_idle_prepare() and let you do the
> remove the rest?
>
> IMHO I'd simply remove local_fiq_{enable/disable}() from
> arm64/kernel/smp.c and leave the infrastructure in place in case someone
> needs it eventually. In which case I could include that into my patch
> as well.
Sounds good. We can keep the local_fiq_*() functions but remove about 4
calling sites (process.c and smp.c) until needed.
Thanks.
--
Catalin
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
