Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756034AbaGaCgl (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jul 2014 22:36:41 -0400 Received: from mail-pd0-f179.google.com ([209.85.192.179]:46173 "EHLO mail-pd0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755505AbaGaCgj (ORCPT ); Wed, 30 Jul 2014 22:36:39 -0400 Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 19:36:35 -0700 From: Brian Norris To: Russell King - ARM Linux Cc: Arnd Bergmann , Olof Johansson , Matt Porter , Christian Daudt , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Linux Kernel , devicetree@vger.kernel.org, Gregory Fong , Florian Fainelli , Marc Carino Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 01/11] ARM: brcmstb: add infrastructure for ARM-based Broadcom STB SoCs Message-ID: <20140731023635.GN3711@ld-irv-0074> References: <1405976886-27807-1-git-send-email-computersforpeace@gmail.com> <1405976886-27807-2-git-send-email-computersforpeace@gmail.com> <20140730092635.GI30282@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140730092635.GI30282@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Russell, On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:26:35AM +0100, Russell King wrote: > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 02:07:56PM -0700, Brian Norris wrote: > > +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(boot_lock); > > + > > +static void brcmstb_secondary_init(unsigned int cpu) > > +{ > > + /* > > + * Synchronise with the boot thread. > > + */ > > + spin_lock(&boot_lock); > > + spin_unlock(&boot_lock); > > +} > > + > > +static int brcmstb_boot_secondary(unsigned int cpu, struct task_struct *idle) > > +{ > > + /* > > + * set synchronisation state between this boot processor > > + * and the secondary one > > + */ > > + spin_lock(&boot_lock); > > + > > + /* Bring up power to the core if necessary */ > > + if (brcmstb_cpu_get_power_state(cpu) == 0) > > + brcmstb_cpu_power_on(cpu); > > + > > + brcmstb_cpu_boot(cpu); > > + > > + /* > > + * now the secondary core is starting up let it run its > > + * calibrations, then wait for it to finish > > + */ > > + spin_unlock(&boot_lock); > > I've just read through this code (because it caused my allmodconfig to > break) and spotted this. Sorry about the allmodconfig problems. I never compile-tested with ARMv6 enabled. This look OK? diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-bcm/Makefile b/arch/arm/mach-bcm/Makefile index f3665121729b..5ce82b4ba931 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-bcm/Makefile +++ b/arch/arm/mach-bcm/Makefile @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_BCM2835) += board_bcm2835.o obj-$(CONFIG_ARCH_BCM_5301X) += bcm_5301x.o ifeq ($(CONFIG_ARCH_BRCMSTB),y) +CFLAGS_platsmp-brcmstb.o += -march=armv7-a obj-y += brcmstb.o obj-$(CONFIG_SMP) += headsmp-brcmstb.o platsmp-brcmstb.o endif > What function does boot_lock perform here? Please, don't quote the > comments (I know where the comments came from) but what I want to hear > is your comments about why you decided to retain this. You might glean a little more from my response to Rob, but I'm not sure there was a good reason for retaining this. We do need to be sure the CPU is fully powered online before bringing it out of reset, but the spinlock seems overkill AFAICT. Brian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/