From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756223AbaIEIjs (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Sep 2014 04:39:48 -0400 Received: from cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com ([217.140.96.50]:38923 "EHLO cam-admin0.cambridge.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750906AbaIEIjp (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Sep 2014 04:39:45 -0400 Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 09:39:32 +0100 From: Will Deacon To: Robert Richter Cc: Mark Rutland , Rob Herring , Arnd Bergmann , Catalin Marinas , Radha Mohan Chintakuntla , Olof Johansson , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Robert Richter Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/4] arm64, thunder: Add Kconfig option for Cavium Thunder SoC Family Message-ID: <20140905083932.GD13515@arm.com> References: <1409903205-2762-1-git-send-email-rric@kernel.org> <1409903205-2762-2-git-send-email-rric@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1409903205-2762-2-git-send-email-rric@kernel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Sep 05, 2014 at 08:46:42AM +0100, Robert Richter wrote: > From: Radha Mohan Chintakuntla > > Increase maximum numbers of cpus to 32. This relates to current > maximal possible cpu number. Increasing this to 64 cpus will be a > separate patch not part of this enablement patches. Just out of interest, does raising the current maximum limit actually break any existing code? If not, then doing this as two patches doesn't seem worth it. Will