On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 11:23:40PM +0200, Heiko St?bner wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 14. Oktober 2014, 13:24:03 schrieb Doug Anderson:
> > Kever,
> >
> > On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Kever Yang <kever.yang at rock-chips.com>
> wrote:
> > > + /*
> > > + * We need to soft reset the cpu when we turn off the cpu power
> > > domain, + * or else the active processors might be stalled when
> > > the individual + * processor is powered down.
> > > + */
> > > + if (read_cpuid_part_number() != ARM_CPU_PART_CORTEX_A9) {
> >
> > I haven't done a full review of this patch, but it seems unlikely that
> > your uses of read_cpuid_part_number() and read_cpuid_part() in this
> > patch are correct. You use both functions and in both cases compare
> > the results to ARM_CPU_PART_CORTEX_A9.
>
> I think read_cpuid_part() would be the correct one, as it does
>
> read_cpuid_id() & ARM_CPU_PART_MASK
>
> which in turn should mask the correct parts of the cpuid to match against
> ARM_CPU_PART_CORTEX_A9 [0].
The clue is the deprecated message. Clearly the original author did not
even build test their code, or if they did, they ignored the warnings.
Either way, that's a fairly worrying issue which raises the question:
how well was this code tested in the first place?
Note that the above quoted if() evaluates to always-false.
--
FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.5Mbps down 400kbps up
according to speedtest.net.
