From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: smp: Only expose /sys/.../cpuX/online if hotpluggable
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 2015 00:01:43 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54DE9067.70103@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150213230137.GH8656@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
On 02/13/15 15:01, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 09:44:50PM +0000, Magnus Damm wrote:
>> Also, based on the comment in mcpm_cpu_can_disable() it looks like the
>> PSCI hook may be executed once only with your change in place?
>> Hopefully PSCI is OK not being invoked for every CPU shutdown.
> This is why I've said (in the parent thread) that I'm not happy to
> apply this patch. Mark Rutland has indicated that he has MCPM cases
> where the CPUs which can be disabled changes dynamically according
> to the secure firmware requirements, and ripping out todays
> infrastructure in light of that, only to have to add it back again
> later makes no sense.
Putting it back is not hard. And the infrastructure is not currently
used for these purposes so renaming it is appropriate. I can leave it in
place if you like, i.e. make a new op for cpu_can_disable and repoint
mcpm's mcpm_cpu_disable() at it. Then when mcpm gets migrate support it
can actually implement a cpu_disable op.
>
> However, cleaning things up by removing unnecessary cpu_disable
> methods is a good thing to do irrespective of that.
>
That's fine I can split it out.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: sboyd@codeaurora.org (Stephen Boyd)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2] ARM: smp: Only expose /sys/.../cpuX/online if hotpluggable
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:01:43 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54DE9067.70103@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150213230137.GH8656@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
On 02/13/15 15:01, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 09:44:50PM +0000, Magnus Damm wrote:
>> Also, based on the comment in mcpm_cpu_can_disable() it looks like the
>> PSCI hook may be executed once only with your change in place?
>> Hopefully PSCI is OK not being invoked for every CPU shutdown.
> This is why I've said (in the parent thread) that I'm not happy to
> apply this patch. Mark Rutland has indicated that he has MCPM cases
> where the CPUs which can be disabled changes dynamically according
> to the secure firmware requirements, and ripping out todays
> infrastructure in light of that, only to have to add it back again
> later makes no sense.
Putting it back is not hard. And the infrastructure is not currently
used for these purposes so renaming it is appropriate. I can leave it in
place if you like, i.e. make a new op for cpu_can_disable and repoint
mcpm's mcpm_cpu_disable() at it. Then when mcpm gets migrate support it
can actually implement a cpu_disable op.
>
> However, cleaning things up by removing unnecessary cpu_disable
> methods is a good thing to do irrespective of that.
>
That's fine I can split it out.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>,
Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com>
Cc: Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org>,
Dave Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>,
SH-Linux <linux-sh@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: smp: Only expose /sys/.../cpuX/online if hotpluggable
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 16:01:43 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54DE9067.70103@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150213230137.GH8656@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
On 02/13/15 15:01, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 09:44:50PM +0000, Magnus Damm wrote:
>> Also, based on the comment in mcpm_cpu_can_disable() it looks like the
>> PSCI hook may be executed once only with your change in place?
>> Hopefully PSCI is OK not being invoked for every CPU shutdown.
> This is why I've said (in the parent thread) that I'm not happy to
> apply this patch. Mark Rutland has indicated that he has MCPM cases
> where the CPUs which can be disabled changes dynamically according
> to the secure firmware requirements, and ripping out todays
> infrastructure in light of that, only to have to add it back again
> later makes no sense.
Putting it back is not hard. And the infrastructure is not currently
used for these purposes so renaming it is appropriate. I can leave it in
place if you like, i.e. make a new op for cpu_can_disable and repoint
mcpm's mcpm_cpu_disable() at it. Then when mcpm gets migrate support it
can actually implement a cpu_disable op.
>
> However, cleaning things up by removing unnecessary cpu_disable
> methods is a good thing to do irrespective of that.
>
That's fine I can split it out.
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-14 0:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-02-13 18:06 [PATCH v2] ARM: smp: Only expose /sys/.../cpuX/online if hotpluggable Stephen Boyd
2015-02-13 18:06 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-13 18:06 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-13 20:20 ` Simon Horman
2015-02-13 20:20 ` Simon Horman
2015-02-13 20:20 ` Simon Horman
2015-02-13 20:23 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-13 20:23 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-13 20:23 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-13 20:54 ` Magnus Damm
2015-02-13 20:54 ` Magnus Damm
2015-02-13 20:54 ` Magnus Damm
2015-02-13 20:59 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-13 20:59 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-13 20:59 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-13 21:44 ` Magnus Damm
2015-02-13 21:44 ` Magnus Damm
2015-02-13 21:44 ` Magnus Damm
2015-02-13 23:01 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-02-13 23:01 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-02-13 23:01 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-02-14 0:01 ` Stephen Boyd [this message]
2015-02-14 0:01 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-14 0:01 ` Stephen Boyd
2015-02-14 10:01 ` Magnus Damm
2015-02-14 10:01 ` Magnus Damm
2015-02-14 10:01 ` Magnus Damm
2015-02-16 15:29 ` Mark Rutland
2015-02-16 15:29 ` Mark Rutland
2015-02-16 15:29 ` Mark Rutland
2015-02-13 22:58 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-02-13 22:58 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-02-13 22:58 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-02-13 22:57 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-02-13 22:57 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-02-13 22:57 ` Russell King - ARM Linux
2015-02-13 23:24 ` Simon Horman
2015-02-13 23:24 ` Simon Horman
2015-02-13 23:24 ` Simon Horman
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=54DE9067.70103@codeaurora.org \
--to=sboyd@codeaurora.org \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.