On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 02:50:07PM -0700, Kever Yang wrote:Thanks for you advice, I'll be more careful next time.
Heiko,You need to at the _very_ _minimum_ build test your code against a
On 10/14/2014 02:23 PM, Heiko Stübner wrote:
Am Dienstag, 14. Oktober 2014, 13:24:03 schrieb Doug Anderson:You are right, read_cpuid_part() is correct one on kernel next,
Kever,wrote:
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Kever Yang <kever.yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
I think read_cpuid_part() would be the correct one, as it does+ /*I haven't done a full review of this patch, but it seems unlikely that
+ * We need to soft reset the cpu when we turn off the cpu power
domain, + * or else the active processors might be stalled when
the individual + * processor is powered down.
+ */
+ if (read_cpuid_part_number() != ARM_CPU_PART_CORTEX_A9) {
your uses of read_cpuid_part_number() and read_cpuid_part() in this
patch are correct. You use both functions and in both cases compare
the results to ARM_CPU_PART_CORTEX_A9.
I mix up 3.14 kernel and next tree, only read_cpuid_part_number() is
available
in 3.14 kernel.
I will correct it in my next version, any other changes needed for new
version?
recent kernel, and preferably test it to make sure that it works as
you intend.
Developing on such an old kernel version, and hoping that the code is
going to be correct for later kernels isn't a nice idea.