[PATCH] ARM: EXYNOS: mcpm: Don't rely on firmware's secondary_cpu_start

[Doug Anderson]

Kukjin,

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 8:28 AM, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim at samsung.com> wrote:
> On 06/12/14 00:19, Doug Anderson wrote:
>>
>> Chander,
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 9:52 PM, Chander Kashyap<k.chander at samsung.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Doug,
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 9:19 PM, Nicolas Pitre<nicolas.pitre at linaro.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 10 Jun 2014, Doug Anderson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My S-state knowledge is not strong, but I believe that Lorenzo's
>>>>> questions matter if we're using S2 for CPUidle (where we actually turn
>>>>> off power and hot unplug CPUs) but not when we're using S1 for CPUidle
>>>>> (where we just enter WFI/WFE).
>>>>>
>>>
>>> No Its not plain WFI.
>>>
>>> All cores in Exynos5420 can be powered off independently.
>>> This functionality has been tested.
>>>
>>> Below is the link for the posted patches.
>>>
>>> https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/6/10/194
>>>
>>> And as Nicolas wrote, these patches need MCPM for that.
>>
>>
>> Most excellent!  I should have been more clear that I only knew about
>> how CPUidle worked in our local production kernel.  There I'm pretty
>> sure CPUidle is just WFI/WFE.  If you've got patches to do better then
>> that's great!
>>
>> ...can you confirm that my patch doesn't interfere with your improved
>> CPUidle?  It's been Acked by Nicolas (thanks!) so I'd imagine it will
>> land shortly.  Kukjin: I assume you'll be taking this?
>>
> Sure, I will ;-)

I see that you put some branches up about 3 hours ago and I don't see
this patch.  Are you planning on applying it?  It would be nice if it
was in 3.16 (since it causes problems booting), but if there's some
reason it needs to be for-next that's OK too.

-Doug