From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Florian Fainelli Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Fixup Broadcom CPU enable method Date: Tue, 3 May 2016 14:45:40 -0700 Message-ID: <57291C04.9010300@gmail.com> References: <1461866399-1725-1-git-send-email-chris.brand@broadcom.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1461866399-1725-1-git-send-email-chris.brand-dY08KVG/lbpWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> Sender: devicetree-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Chris Brand , Rob Herring , Pawel Moll , Mark Rutland , Ian Campbell , Kumar Gala , Ray Jui , Scott Branden , Jon Mason , devicetree-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, bcm-kernel-feedback-list-dY08KVG/lbpWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org, Florian Fainelli List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On 28/04/16 10:59, Chris Brand wrote: > This is preparation for supporting the quad-core BCM23550 chip. > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt states that "enable-method" > should be a property of the "cpu" node rather than the "cpus" node. > > Commit 84320e1a635fcf90cff4185f029ce9e31bf1d4a7 > ("ARM: BCM: Clean up SMP support for Broadcom Kona") moved the > "secondary-boot-reg" property from the "cpus" node to the individual "cpu" > nodes but negelected to actually support multiple "secondary-boot-reg" > properties. > > This patchset moves the enable-method property to the correct place, > adds the missing enable-method to the binding documentation, and actually > supports setting the "enable-method" property on multiple CPU nodes. > > Without this change, "secondary-boot-reg" on even-numbered CPUs is ignored, > and the value specified on the last odd-numbered CPU to be processed > overrides any earlier values. > > Behaviour is slightly changed by this patchset, in that the > "secondary-boot-reg" property is only examined when the CPU is being enabled. > This means that the omission of that property will be reported slightly later, > or never if the CPU in question is never brought online. It also means that > the omission in one CPU has no effect on other CPUs, whereas previously > omitting it from one CPU would force the system into single-core mode. Series applied to devicetree/next, thanks Chris! -- Florian -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html