From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: gregory.clement@free-electrons.com (Gregory CLEMENT) Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2014 16:58:28 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/6] ARM: mvebu: introduce CPU reset code In-Reply-To: <20140327151945.365db704@skate> References: <1395927485-11842-1-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <1395927485-11842-2-git-send-email-thomas.petazzoni@free-electrons.com> <53342EF1.3020508@free-electrons.com> <20140327151945.365db704@skate> Message-ID: <53344AA4.4040805@free-electrons.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 27/03/2014 15:19, Thomas Petazzoni wrote: > Dear Gregory CLEMENT, > > On Thu, 27 Mar 2014 15:00:17 +0100, Gregory CLEMENT wrote: > >>> +static struct of_device_id of_cpu_reset_table[] = { >>> + {.compatible = "marvell,armada-370-cpu-reset", .data = (void*) ARMADA_370_MAX_CPUS }, >> What about removing the previous line. As explained in patch 5, the CPU >> reset driver is not really needed as Armada 370 is single core and the >> only use of the CPU reset driver is to boot secondary processors. So by >> removing this line we can keep the marvell,armada-370-cpu-reset node in >> the device tree without doing useless initialization. > > I found it weird to have a compatible string marked as supported in the > DT binding document, but not actually supported by the kernel. I know > it's possible, but I found it odd, especially considering the fact that > mapping these registers, even if unused, isn't costing much. > > I don't have a strong opinion on this, so if others voice in this way, > I'll change it. Me neither I don't have a strong opinion on ths, so with our without this line, you can add my: Acked-by: Gregory CLEMENT and also: Tested-by: Gregory CLEMENT by the way > > Thomas > -- Gregory Clement, Free Electrons Kernel, drivers, real-time and embedded Linux development, consulting, training and support. http://free-electrons.com