From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lina.iyer@linaro.org (Lina Iyer) Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 15:11:56 -0700 Subject: [PATCH v2] qcom: scm: Add qcom_scm_set_warm_boot_addr function In-Reply-To: <7AD3AAF7-E7D2-4D26-9897-46A6122E66BA@codeaurora.org> References: <1425070047-53449-1-git-send-email-lina.iyer@linaro.org> <20150227215125.GF1678@linaro.org> <7AD3AAF7-E7D2-4D26-9897-46A6122E66BA@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: <20150227221156.GG1678@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Feb 27 2015 at 15:07 -0700, Kumar Gala wrote: >>>>> +int qcom_scm_set_warm_boot_addr(void *entry, int cpu) >>>> >>>> I?d really like to see if we could make the set_boot_addr and set_warm_boot_addr have the same interfaces. >>> >>> I am working on making the interfaces similar. There is some check in >>> the platsmp.c that uses the cold boot flag array to determine the >>> present cpus. Do you think, we can ignore that check over there? If that >>> can be done, I will change the interface for cold boot too. >> >> I don?t see any reason we can?t add qcom_scm_set_cold_boot_addr() move the flags such that they only exist in qcom_scm_set_boot_addr and make qcom_scm_set_boot_addr static. >> >> - k > >Looking at this for another minute, I think we should have the interfaces be something like: > >qcom_scm_set_cold_boot_addr(void * entry, cpumask_t mask); >qcom_scm_set_warm_boot_addr(void * entry, cpumask_t mask); Very similar to what I was thinking. I will send another patchest when I get to it. > >- k > >-- >Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. >The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, >a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project >