On Wed, 09 Dec 2015, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 December 2015 14:32:01 Lee Jones wrote:
> > @@ -161,3 +166,11 @@ struct smp_operations __initdata sti_smp_ops = {
> > .smp_secondary_init = sti_secondary_init,
> > .smp_boot_secondary = sti_boot_secondary,
> > };
>
On 09-12-15, 10:15, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 08 December 2015 14:32:01 Lee Jones wrote:
> > @@ -161,3 +166,11 @@ struct smp_operations __initdata sti_smp_ops = {
> > .smp_secondary_init = sti_secondary_init,
> > .smp_boot_secondary = sti_boot_secondary,
> > };
> >
On Tuesday 08 December 2015 14:32:01 Lee Jones wrote:
> @@ -161,3 +166,11 @@ struct smp_operations __initdata sti_smp_ops = {
> .smp_secondary_init = sti_secondary_init,
> .smp_boot_secondary = sti_boot_secondary,
> };
> +
> +/**
> + * CPUFreq Registration
> + */
> +void in
On 08-12-15, 14:32, Lee Jones wrote:
> +/**
> + * SMP Operations
> + */
Why do you need a documentation style comment here?
> static void write_pen_release(int val)
> {
> pen_release = val;
> @@ -161,3 +166,11 @@ struct smp_operations __initdata sti_smp_ops = {
> .smp_secondary_init
DT will not allow pseudo-devices. Only devices which represent real
hardware are permitted. So we have to register the CPUFreq driver
from platform code instead.
Rather than create a new file, we're bundling this in with the SMP
functionality and renaming it from 'smp' to the more generic 'cpu'.
5 matches
Mail list logo