linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv3 03/10] ARM: smp_twd: Divorce smp

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5154A37B.1070407@codeaurora.org>
Date:	Thu, 28 Mar 2013 13:09:31 -0700
From:	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
To:	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
CC:	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	"linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 03/10] ARM: smp_twd: Divorce smp_twd from local timer
 API

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 <mark.rutland@....com>

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

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/