On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 08:20:14AM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 08:18:48AM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 01:49:30PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > In a subsequent patch we'll modify cpus_have_const_cap() to call
> > > cpus_have_final_cap(), and hence
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 08:18:48AM +, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 01:49:30PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > In a subsequent patch we'll modify cpus_have_const_cap() to call
> > cpus_have_final_cap(), and hence we need to define cpus_have_final_cap()
> > first.
> >
> > To make
On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 01:49:30PM +, Mark Rutland wrote:
> In a subsequent patch we'll modify cpus_have_const_cap() to call
> cpus_have_final_cap(), and hence we need to define cpus_have_final_cap()
> first.
>
> To make subsequent changes easier to follow, this patch reorders the two
> withou
In a subsequent patch we'll modify cpus_have_const_cap() to call
cpus_have_final_cap(), and hence we need to define cpus_have_final_cap()
first.
To make subsequent changes easier to follow, this patch reorders the two
without making any other changes.
There should be no functional change as a res
