From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: linux@arm.linux.org.uk (Russell King - ARM Linux) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 00:36:40 +0100 Subject: [PATCH RESEND] ARM: l2x0: add three special L210 aux control flags In-Reply-To: <20160404232926.GV28102@jcartwri.amer.corp.natinst.com> References: <1458043882-16881-1-git-send-email-linus.walleij@linaro.org> <20160404232926.GV28102@jcartwri.amer.corp.natinst.com> Message-ID: <20160404233640.GW19428@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 06:29:26PM -0500, Josh Cartwright wrote: > Similarly, we're waiting on feedback for: > > http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1456761716-10174-1-git-send-email-brad.mouring at ni.com > > Also in the queue; also w/ Rob's Ack. There was a change awhile back to > unconditionally enable the power-management features of the PL310 which > caused a noticeable performance degradation on our boards; placing the > PM options behind a togglable DT property provides us an out. For that one, I've been wondering why it's seemingly acceptable to start throwing *errors* for *new* DT properties which weren't required before. Also, there's no DT documentation for the new properties, which is a fundamental requirement - and Rob should not have given his ack without there being a DT documentation patch. Obviously, the kernel review process has broken on this one... or I must remember this sneaky trick for getting new DT properties in without the required documentation... -- RMK's Patch system: http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line: currently at 9.6Mbps down 400kbps up according to speedtest.net.