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@xxxxxxx> > > 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-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
