On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 10:29:30PM +0100, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > On 2018-12-11 19:19:32 [+0100], Linus Walleij wrote: > > Can you please send one patch per mach-* plat-*? > > > > I can apply the plat-versatile patch and send upstream. > > I just resent the versatile hunk. Should I really split up and resend > the other platforms? Russell was not very amused about it. Just the Versatile bit, and no I don't see any point in fixing the other SoCs - it's an incentive for them to fix up their code. However, given that hardly any have responded, pointing out this problem in email clearly hasn't worked by the resounding silence from SoC maintainers. Removing boot_lock from those platforms who just cargo-culted the boot_lock including comments without the pen_release stuff is easy, all the lock is doing there is providing a bit of unnecessary synchronisation between the requesting CPU and the booting CPU. Only a couple of SoCs fall into this case - OMAP4 and qcom. The rest aren't something that could just be ripped out without the involvement of the SoC maintainer to test the changes - so I'm of the opinion that we should just send SoC maintainers patches that remove the pen_release and boot_lock crap. If they blindly accept the patches, so be it. I'm preparing a series to attack some of this. -- RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up
