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: <20130402084138.GG30477@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
Date:	Tue, 2 Apr 2013 09:41:39 +0100
From:	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
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 Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 08:09:31PM +0000, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> 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.

Ok.

> 
> >
> > 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?

It just seemed odd to me that the two series should conflict (though
trivially) here.

Mark.
--
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/