From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lina Iyer Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] qcom: scm: Add qcom_scm_set_warm_boot_addr function Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 15:11:56 -0700 Message-ID: <20150227221156.GG1678@linaro.org> References: <1425070047-53449-1-git-send-email-lina.iyer@linaro.org> <20150227215125.GF1678@linaro.org> <7AD3AAF7-E7D2-4D26-9897-46A6122E66BA@codeaurora.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7AD3AAF7-E7D2-4D26-9897-46A6122E66BA@codeaurora.org> Sender: linux-arm-msm-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Kumar Gala Cc: Stephen Boyd , linux-arm-msm , Andy Gross , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, khilman@linaro.org List-Id: linux-pm@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 27 2015 at 15:07 -0700, Kumar Gala wrote: >>>>> +int qcom_scm_set_warm_boot_addr(void *entry, int cpu) >>>> >>>> I=E2=80=99d really like to see if we could make the set_boot_addr = and set_warm_boot_addr have the same interfaces. >>> >>> I am working on making the interfaces similar. There is some check = in >>> the platsmp.c that uses the cold boot flag array to determine the >>> present cpus. Do you think, we can ignore that check over there? If= that >>> can be done, I will change the interface for cold boot too. >> >> I don=E2=80=99t see any reason we can=E2=80=99t add qcom_scm_set_col= d_boot_addr() move the flags such that they only exist in qcom_scm_set_= boot_addr and make qcom_scm_set_boot_addr static. >> >> - k > >Looking at this for another minute, I think we should have the interfa= ces be something like: > >qcom_scm_set_cold_boot_addr(void * entry, cpumask_t mask); >qcom_scm_set_warm_boot_addr(void * entry, cpumask_t mask); Very similar to what I was thinking. I will send another patchest when = I get to it. > >- k > >--=20 >Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. >The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Fo= rum, >a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project >