Searched hist:"7270 d11c" (Results 1 – 6 of 6) sorted by relevance
| /openbmc/linux/kernel/time/ |
| H A D | tick-sched.h | 7270d11c Wed Mar 25 07:11:52 CDT 2015 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> arm/bL_switcher: Kill tick suspend hackery
Use the new tick_suspend/resume_local() and get rid of the
homebrewn implementation of these in the ARM bL switcher. The
check for the cpumask is completely pointless. There is no harm
to suspend a per cpu tick device unconditionally. If that's a
real issue then we fix it proper at the core level and not with
some completely undocumented hacks in some random core code.
Move the tick internals to the core code, now that this nuisance
is gone.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
[ rjw: Rebase, changelog ]
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Cc: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1655112.Ws17YsMfN7@vostro.rjw.lan
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
7270d11c Wed Mar 25 07:11:52 CDT 2015 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> arm/bL_switcher: Kill tick suspend hackery
Use the new tick_suspend/resume_local() and get rid of the
homebrewn implementation of these in the ARM bL switcher. The
check for the cpumask is completely pointless. There is no harm
to suspend a per cpu tick device unconditionally. If that's a
real issue then we fix it proper at the core level and not with
some completely undocumented hacks in some random core code.
Move the tick internals to the core code, now that this nuisance
is gone.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
[ rjw: Rebase, changelog ]
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Cc: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1655112.Ws17YsMfN7@vostro.rjw.lan
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
|
| H A D | tick-internal.h | 7270d11c Wed Mar 25 07:11:52 CDT 2015 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> arm/bL_switcher: Kill tick suspend hackery
Use the new tick_suspend/resume_local() and get rid of the
homebrewn implementation of these in the ARM bL switcher. The
check for the cpumask is completely pointless. There is no harm
to suspend a per cpu tick device unconditionally. If that's a
real issue then we fix it proper at the core level and not with
some completely undocumented hacks in some random core code.
Move the tick internals to the core code, now that this nuisance
is gone.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
[ rjw: Rebase, changelog ]
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Cc: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1655112.Ws17YsMfN7@vostro.rjw.lan
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
7270d11c Wed Mar 25 07:11:52 CDT 2015 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> arm/bL_switcher: Kill tick suspend hackery
Use the new tick_suspend/resume_local() and get rid of the
homebrewn implementation of these in the ARM bL switcher. The
check for the cpumask is completely pointless. There is no harm
to suspend a per cpu tick device unconditionally. If that's a
real issue then we fix it proper at the core level and not with
some completely undocumented hacks in some random core code.
Move the tick internals to the core code, now that this nuisance
is gone.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
[ rjw: Rebase, changelog ]
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Cc: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1655112.Ws17YsMfN7@vostro.rjw.lan
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
|
| H A D | tick-common.c | 7270d11c Wed Mar 25 07:11:52 CDT 2015 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> arm/bL_switcher: Kill tick suspend hackery
Use the new tick_suspend/resume_local() and get rid of the
homebrewn implementation of these in the ARM bL switcher. The
check for the cpumask is completely pointless. There is no harm
to suspend a per cpu tick device unconditionally. If that's a
real issue then we fix it proper at the core level and not with
some completely undocumented hacks in some random core code.
Move the tick internals to the core code, now that this nuisance
is gone.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
[ rjw: Rebase, changelog ]
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Cc: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1655112.Ws17YsMfN7@vostro.rjw.lan
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
7270d11c Wed Mar 25 07:11:52 CDT 2015 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> arm/bL_switcher: Kill tick suspend hackery
Use the new tick_suspend/resume_local() and get rid of the
homebrewn implementation of these in the ARM bL switcher. The
check for the cpumask is completely pointless. There is no harm
to suspend a per cpu tick device unconditionally. If that's a
real issue then we fix it proper at the core level and not with
some completely undocumented hacks in some random core code.
Move the tick internals to the core code, now that this nuisance
is gone.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
[ rjw: Rebase, changelog ]
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Cc: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1655112.Ws17YsMfN7@vostro.rjw.lan
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
|
| /openbmc/linux/arch/arm/common/ |
| H A D | bL_switcher.c | 7270d11c Wed Mar 25 07:11:52 CDT 2015 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> arm/bL_switcher: Kill tick suspend hackery
Use the new tick_suspend/resume_local() and get rid of the
homebrewn implementation of these in the ARM bL switcher. The
check for the cpumask is completely pointless. There is no harm
to suspend a per cpu tick device unconditionally. If that's a
real issue then we fix it proper at the core level and not with
some completely undocumented hacks in some random core code.
Move the tick internals to the core code, now that this nuisance
is gone.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
[ rjw: Rebase, changelog ]
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Cc: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1655112.Ws17YsMfN7@vostro.rjw.lan
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
7270d11c Wed Mar 25 07:11:52 CDT 2015 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> arm/bL_switcher: Kill tick suspend hackery
Use the new tick_suspend/resume_local() and get rid of the
homebrewn implementation of these in the ARM bL switcher. The
check for the cpumask is completely pointless. There is no harm
to suspend a per cpu tick device unconditionally. If that's a
real issue then we fix it proper at the core level and not with
some completely undocumented hacks in some random core code.
Move the tick internals to the core code, now that this nuisance
is gone.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
[ rjw: Rebase, changelog ]
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Cc: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1655112.Ws17YsMfN7@vostro.rjw.lan
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
|
| /openbmc/linux/include/linux/ |
| H A D | clockchips.h | 7270d11c Wed Mar 25 07:11:52 CDT 2015 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> arm/bL_switcher: Kill tick suspend hackery
Use the new tick_suspend/resume_local() and get rid of the
homebrewn implementation of these in the ARM bL switcher. The
check for the cpumask is completely pointless. There is no harm
to suspend a per cpu tick device unconditionally. If that's a
real issue then we fix it proper at the core level and not with
some completely undocumented hacks in some random core code.
Move the tick internals to the core code, now that this nuisance
is gone.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
[ rjw: Rebase, changelog ]
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Cc: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1655112.Ws17YsMfN7@vostro.rjw.lan
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
7270d11c Wed Mar 25 07:11:52 CDT 2015 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> arm/bL_switcher: Kill tick suspend hackery
Use the new tick_suspend/resume_local() and get rid of the
homebrewn implementation of these in the ARM bL switcher. The
check for the cpumask is completely pointless. There is no harm
to suspend a per cpu tick device unconditionally. If that's a
real issue then we fix it proper at the core level and not with
some completely undocumented hacks in some random core code.
Move the tick internals to the core code, now that this nuisance
is gone.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
[ rjw: Rebase, changelog ]
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Cc: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1655112.Ws17YsMfN7@vostro.rjw.lan
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
|
| H A D | tick.h | 7270d11c Wed Mar 25 07:11:52 CDT 2015 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> arm/bL_switcher: Kill tick suspend hackery
Use the new tick_suspend/resume_local() and get rid of the
homebrewn implementation of these in the ARM bL switcher. The
check for the cpumask is completely pointless. There is no harm
to suspend a per cpu tick device unconditionally. If that's a
real issue then we fix it proper at the core level and not with
some completely undocumented hacks in some random core code.
Move the tick internals to the core code, now that this nuisance
is gone.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
[ rjw: Rebase, changelog ]
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Cc: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1655112.Ws17YsMfN7@vostro.rjw.lan
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
7270d11c Wed Mar 25 07:11:52 CDT 2015 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> arm/bL_switcher: Kill tick suspend hackery
Use the new tick_suspend/resume_local() and get rid of the
homebrewn implementation of these in the ARM bL switcher. The
check for the cpumask is completely pointless. There is no harm
to suspend a per cpu tick device unconditionally. If that's a
real issue then we fix it proper at the core level and not with
some completely undocumented hacks in some random core code.
Move the tick internals to the core code, now that this nuisance
is gone.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
[ rjw: Rebase, changelog ]
Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Cc: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@linaro.org>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/1655112.Ws17YsMfN7@vostro.rjw.lan
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
|