[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <52E697C6.10809@linaro.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 18:30:46 +0100
From: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
CC: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mundt <lethal@...ux-sh.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/9] ARM: get rid of arch_cpu_idle_prepare()
On 01/27/2014 06:21 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 06:12:53PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>> On 01/27/2014 05:07 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 09:22:55AM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
>>>> On 01/27/2014 07:08 AM, 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
>>>>> i.e. when FIQs are actually used.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre <nico@...aro.org>
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>
>>>
>>> What kind of review did you do when giving that attributation?
>>
>> I did the review to the best of my knowledge and with good will.
>>
>> I read your comment on this patch and I learnt one more thing.
>>
>> Today, I am smarter than yesterday and dumber than tomorrow :)
>
> Just be aware that putting a comment along with the reviewed-by tag
> is always a good idea. I know that's a little more work, but this has
> been raised a number of times by various people over the years.
>
> A reviewed-by tag on its own doesn't mean much, as it could mean that
> you've just glanced over the code and decided "yea, it looks okay", or
> it could mean that you've spent all day verifying that the code change
> is indeed correct.
>
> Consequently, some will ignore emails which just contain a reviewed-by
> attributation.
Thanks for the clarification. I will take care of giving a comment next
time.
-- Daniel
--
<http://www.linaro.org/> Linaro.org │ Open source software for ARM SoCs
Follow Linaro: <http://www.facebook.com/pages/Linaro> Facebook |
<http://twitter.com/#!/linaroorg> Twitter |
<http://www.linaro.org/linaro-blog/> Blog
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists