>> +static int s500_smp_boot_secondary(unsigned int cpu, struct task_struct
>> *idle)
>> +{
>> + unsigned long timeout;
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + ret = s500_wakeup_secondary(cpu);
>> + if (ret)
>> + return ret;
>> +
>> + udelay(10);
>> +
>> + spin_lock(&boot_lock);
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * The secondary processor is waiting to be released from
>> + * the holding pen - release it, then wait for it to flag
>> + * that it has been released by resetting pen_release.
>> + */
>> + write_pen_release(cpu_logical_map(cpu));
>> + smp_send_reschedule(cpu);
>> +
>> + timeout = jiffies + (1 * HZ);
>> + while (time_before(jiffies, timeout)) {
>> + if (pen_release == -1)
>> + break;
>> + }
>> +
>> + writel(0, timer_base_addr + OWL_CPU1_ADDR + (cpu - 1) * 4);
>> + writel(0, timer_base_addr + OWL_CPU1_FLAG + (cpu - 1) * 4);
>> +
>> + spin_unlock(&boot_lock);
>> +
>> + return pen_release != -1 ? -ENOSYS : 0;
>> +}
>
> This looks more complicated than necessary. Why do you need the holding
> pen when you have a register to start up the CPU?
>
It seems you missed my question here. Can you please follow up, and
if possible send a patch to remove the pen_release logic that appears
to be unnecessary here?
Arnd
