On 06/21/2011 04:10 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 01:16:47PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: >> On 06/21/2011 03:26 AM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 03:51:00PM +0530, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: >>>> On 6/21/2011 3:49 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: >>>>> I won't be committing the init/calibrate.c change to a git tree - it >>>>> isn't ARM stuff so it goes in patch form. >>>> Patches with change log would be fine as well. >>> The answer is not at the moment, but maybe soon. >> Should we send those two patches to the stable trees as well? They seem >> to fix issues with cpu onlining that have existed for a long time. > Looks to me like the problem was introduced for 2.6.39-rc1, so we > should probably get the fix into the 2.6.39-stable tree too. Are we talking about the loops_per_jiffy problem or the cpu_active problem? I would think the cpu_active problem has been there since SMP support was added to ARM and the loops_per_jiffy problem has been there (depending on the compiler) since 8a9e1b0 ([PATCH] Platform SMIs and their interferance with tsc based delay calibration, 2005-06-23). So pretty much every stable tree would want both of these patches. -- Sent by an employee of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
