From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: daniel.lezcano@linaro.org (Daniel Lezcano) Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 18:30:46 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/9] ARM: get rid of arch_cpu_idle_prepare() In-Reply-To: <20140127172110.GR15937@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> <52E69395.9020004@linaro.org> <20140127172110.GR15937@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <52E697C6.10809@linaro.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 01/27/2014 06:21 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 06:12:53PM +0100, Daniel Lezcano wrote: >> 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 :) > > Just be aware that putting a comment along with the reviewed-by tag > is always a good idea. I know that's a little more work, but this has > been raised a number of times by various people over the years. > > A reviewed-by tag on its own doesn't mean much, as it could mean that > you've just glanced over the code and decided "yea, it looks okay", or > it could mean that you've spent all day verifying that the code change > is indeed correct. > > Consequently, some will ignore emails which just contain a reviewed-by > attributation. Thanks for the clarification. I will take care of giving a comment next time. -- Daniel -- Linaro.org ? Open source software for ARM SoCs Follow Linaro: Facebook | Twitter | Blog