From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Daniel Lezcano Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/17] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move scu_enable in the cpu_pm notifier Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 11:03:14 +0200 Message-ID: <533E7552.1080806@linaro.org> References: <1396597683-6969-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <1396597683-6969-9-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com ([209.85.212.179]:38499 "EHLO mail-wi0-f179.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751799AbaDDJDA (ORCPT ); Fri, 4 Apr 2014 05:03:00 -0400 Received: by mail-wi0-f179.google.com with SMTP id z2so805087wiv.0 for ; Fri, 04 Apr 2014 02:02:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org To: Viresh Kumar Cc: Kukjin Kim , Tomasz Figa , linux-samsung-soc , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Lists linaro-kernel , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" On 04/04/2014 10:57 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 4 April 2014 13:17, Daniel Lezcano wro= te: >> We make the cpuidle code less arch dependent. >> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano >> --- >> arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c | 6 ------ >> arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c | 3 +++ >> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/c= puidle.c >> index 4b090cf..c63ad05 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c >> @@ -18,7 +18,6 @@ >> #include >> >> #include >> -#include >> #include >> #include >> #include >> @@ -94,11 +93,6 @@ static int exynos_enter_core0_aftr(struct cpuidle= _device *dev, >> >> cpu_pm_enter(); >> cpu_suspend(0, idle_finisher); >> - >> -#ifdef CONFIG_SMP >> - if (!soc_is_exynos5250()) >> - scu_enable(S5P_VA_SCU); >> -#endif >> cpu_pm_exit(); >> >> /* >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c >> index b2a075e..f43a004 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c >> @@ -386,6 +386,9 @@ static int exynos_cpu_pm_notifier(struct notifie= r_block *self, >> break; >> >> case CPU_PM_EXIT: >> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP >> + scu_enable(S5P_VA_SCU); > > We used to do this only when: !soc_is_exynos5250(). > Why this changed? Because the pm_notifier is registered if !soc_is_exynos5250() >> +#endif > > You don't need these #ifdefs here.. How would you reach here on a non > SMP system? > >> exynos_cpu_restore_register(); >> break; >> } >> -- >> 1.7.9.5 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> linaro-kernel mailing list >> linaro-kernel@lists.linaro.org >> http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-kernel --=20 Linaro.org =E2=94=82 Open source software fo= r ARM SoCs =46ollow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: daniel.lezcano@linaro.org (Daniel Lezcano) Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 11:03:14 +0200 Subject: [PATCH 08/17] ARM: exynos: cpuidle: Move scu_enable in the cpu_pm notifier In-Reply-To: References: <1396597683-6969-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <1396597683-6969-9-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> Message-ID: <533E7552.1080806@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 04/04/2014 10:57 AM, Viresh Kumar wrote: > On 4 April 2014 13:17, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> We make the cpuidle code less arch dependent. >> >> Signed-off-by: Daniel Lezcano >> --- >> arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c | 6 ------ >> arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c | 3 +++ >> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c >> index 4b090cf..c63ad05 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/cpuidle.c >> @@ -18,7 +18,6 @@ >> #include >> >> #include >> -#include >> #include >> #include >> #include >> @@ -94,11 +93,6 @@ static int exynos_enter_core0_aftr(struct cpuidle_device *dev, >> >> cpu_pm_enter(); >> cpu_suspend(0, idle_finisher); >> - >> -#ifdef CONFIG_SMP >> - if (!soc_is_exynos5250()) >> - scu_enable(S5P_VA_SCU); >> -#endif >> cpu_pm_exit(); >> >> /* >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c >> index b2a075e..f43a004 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c >> @@ -386,6 +386,9 @@ static int exynos_cpu_pm_notifier(struct notifier_block *self, >> break; >> >> case CPU_PM_EXIT: >> +#ifdef CONFIG_SMP >> + scu_enable(S5P_VA_SCU); > > We used to do this only when: !soc_is_exynos5250(). > Why this changed? Because the pm_notifier is registered if !soc_is_exynos5250() >> +#endif > > You don't need these #ifdefs here.. How would you reach here on a non > SMP system? > >> exynos_cpu_restore_register(); >> break; >> } >> -- >> 1.7.9.5 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> linaro-kernel mailing list >> linaro-kernel at lists.linaro.org >> http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/linaro-kernel -- Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog