From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Arnd Bergmann Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: Define wfi() macro for v6 processors Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 16:17:58 +0100 Message-ID: <201102081617.59092.arnd@arndb.de> References: <1297162885-2975-1-git-send-email-dave.martin@linaro.org> <19a3630aad67b496a4e36354abc63c4a@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.17.10]:60327 "EHLO moutng.kundenserver.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754766Ab1BHPSI (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Feb 2011 10:18:08 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-omap-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org To: Dave Martin Cc: Santosh Shilimkar , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Russell King - ARM Linux , Nicolas Pitre , Tony Lindgren , linux-omap@vger.kernel.org, Jean Pihet-XID On Tuesday 08 February 2011, Dave Martin wrote: > CFLAGS_cpu_specific_object.o += -march=armv7-a > > Whether it's safe to do it depends on whether code from that file > could ever get run on other processors. I'm not so sure of the answer > to that..., but perhaps someone else has a better idea. We already do this a lot from arch/arm/mm/Makefile, and those files are typically just one function per file, so they can easily be proven to be safe that way. Arnd From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: arnd@arndb.de (Arnd Bergmann) Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2011 16:17:58 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v2] ARM: Define wfi() macro for v6 processors In-Reply-To: References: <1297162885-2975-1-git-send-email-dave.martin@linaro.org> <19a3630aad67b496a4e36354abc63c4a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <201102081617.59092.arnd@arndb.de> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Tuesday 08 February 2011, Dave Martin wrote: > CFLAGS_cpu_specific_object.o += -march=armv7-a > > Whether it's safe to do it depends on whether code from that file > could ever get run on other processors. I'm not so sure of the answer > to that..., but perhaps someone else has a better idea. We already do this a lot from arch/arm/mm/Makefile, and those files are typically just one function per file, so they can easily be proven to be safe that way. Arnd