From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Russell King - ARM Linux Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/9] ARM: qcom: remove unnecessary boot_lock Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2019 15:09:35 +0000 Message-ID: <20190111150935.GA4617@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> References: <20181213175952.GC26090@n2100.armlinux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+linux-arm-kernel=m.gmane.org@lists.infradead.org To: Linus Walleij Cc: Mark Rutland , linux-oxnas@groups.io, Marc Zyngier , linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org, Daniel Lezcano , Stephen Boyd , David Brown , Andy Gross , Linux-OMAP , "open list:ARM/QUALCOMM SUPPORT" , Linux ARM List-Id: linux-omap@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 10, 2019 at 01:50:56PM +0100, Linus Walleij wrote: > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 7:00 PM Russell King wrote: > > > The boot_lock is something that was required for ARM development > > platforms to ensure that the delay calibration worked properly. This > > is not necessary for modern platforms that have better bus bandwidth > > and do not need to calibrate the delay loop for secondary cores. > > Remove the boot_lock entirely. > > > > Signed-off-by: Russell King > > Andy have you had a chance to test/apply this patch? I would rather folk do not _apply_ these patches - the final patch is dependent on all the preceeding patches, and if they're applied to individual trees, it will mean that the final patch has to be delayed by a complete kernel development cycle to avoid bisect breakage. -- RMK's Patch system: http://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/ FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up