From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: daniel.lezcano@linaro.org (Daniel Lezcano) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 18:12:53 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/9] ARM: get rid of arch_cpu_idle_prepare() In-Reply-To: <20140127160736.GP15937@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1390802904-28399-1-git-send-email-nicolas.pitre@linaro.org> <1390802904-28399-2-git-send-email-nicolas.pitre@linaro.org> <52E6175F.1050401@linaro.org> <20140127160736.GP15937@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <52E69395.9020004@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 01/27/2014 05:07 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 09:22:55AM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> On 01/27/2014 07:08 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote: >>> ARM and ARM64 are the only two architectures implementing >>> arch_cpu_idle_prepare() simply to call local_fiq_enable(). >>> >>> We have secondary_start_kernel() already calling local_fiq_enable() and >>> this is done a second time in arch_cpu_idle_prepare() in that case. And >>> enabling FIQs has nothing to do with idling the CPU to start with. >>> >>> So let's introduce init_fiq_boot_cpu() to take care of FIQs on the boot >>> CPU and remove arch_cpu_idle_prepare(). This is now done a bit earlier >>> at late_initcall time but this shouldn't make a difference in practice >>> i.e. when FIQs are actually used. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Nicolas Pitre >> >> Reviewed-by: Daniel Lezcano > > What kind of review did you do when giving that attributation? I did the review to the best of my knowledge and with good will. I read your comment on this patch and I learnt one more thing. Today, I am smarter than yesterday and dumber than tomorrow :) -- Daniel -- Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog