[PATCHv2] ARM: Push selects for TWD/SCU into machine entries

The TWD and SCU configs are selected by default as long as
MSM_SCORPIONMP is false and/or MCT is false. Implementing the
logic this way certainly saves lines in the Kconfig but it
precludes those machines which select MSM_SCORPIONMP or MCT from
participating in the single zImage effort because when those
machines are combined with other SMP capable machines the TWD and
SCU are no longer selected by default.

Push the select out to the machine entries so that we can compile
these machines together and still select the appropriate configs.

Cc: Barry Song <baohua.song@csr.com>
Acked-by: David Brown <davidb@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>
Cc: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>
Acked-by: Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@arm.com>
Cc: Rob Herring <rob.herring@calxeda.com>
Cc: Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Acked-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@ti.com>
Cc: Sascha Hauer <kernel@pengutronix.de>
Cc: Shiraz Hashim <shiraz.hashim@st.com>
Acked-by: Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>
Cc: Srinidhi Kasagar <srinidhi.kasagar@stericsson.com>
Cc: Stephen Warren <swarren@wwwdotorg.org>
Cc: Tony Lindgren <tony@atomide.com>
Acked-by: Viresh Kumar <viresh.linux@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
---

Resending to collect some more acks.

 arch/arm/Kconfig               | 8 ++++++--
 arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig   | 2 ++
 arch/arm/mach-highbank/Kconfig | 1 +
 arch/arm/mach-imx/Kconfig      | 3 ++-
 arch/arm/mach-msm/Kconfig      | 7 ++-----
 arch/arm/mach-omap2/Kconfig    | 2 ++
 arch/arm/mach-prima2/Kconfig   | 1 +
 arch/arm/mach-realview/Kconfig | 8 ++++++++
 arch/arm/mach-vexpress/Kconfig | 2 ++
 arch/arm/plat-spear/Kconfig    | 2 ++
 10 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)

On 02/27/2013 04:28 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> The TWD and SCU configs are selected by default as long as
> MSM_SCORPIONMP is false and/or MCT is false. Implementing the
> logic this way certainly saves lines in the Kconfig but it
> precludes those machines which select MSM_SCORPIONMP or MCT from
> participating in the single zImage effort because when those
> machines are combined with other SMP capable machines the TWD and
> SCU are no longer selected by default.
> 
> Push the select out to the machine entries so that we can compile
> these machines together and still select the appropriate configs.

> Resending to collect some more acks.

Seems simple enough it doesn't really need many, but for Tegra,
Acked-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>

Which kernel is this going into? It's possible Tegra will get converted
to multi-platform in 3.10, which might move that main ARCH_TEGRA block
from arch/arm/Kconfig into arch/arm/mach-tegra/Kconfig, although I
suppose it doesn't /have/ to move it. I think some/all(?) other
multi-platform conversions have moved their main Kconfig option like
that though.

On 02/27/13 15:43, Stephen Warren wrote:
>
> Seems simple enough it doesn't really need many, but for Tegra,
> Acked-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
>
> Which kernel is this going into? It's possible Tegra will get converted
> to multi-platform in 3.10, which might move that main ARCH_TEGRA block
> from arch/arm/Kconfig into arch/arm/mach-tegra/Kconfig, although I
> suppose it doesn't /have/ to move it. I think some/all(?) other
> multi-platform conversions have moved their main Kconfig option like
> that though.

Thanks. I'm hoping that Arnd/Olof can pick this up. I'm not sure which
version it will go into.

On Tuesday 05 March 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 02/27/13 15:43, Stephen Warren wrote:
> >
> > Seems simple enough it doesn't really need many, but for Tegra,
> > Acked-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
> >
> > Which kernel is this going into? It's possible Tegra will get converted
> > to multi-platform in 3.10, which might move that main ARCH_TEGRA block
> > from arch/arm/Kconfig into arch/arm/mach-tegra/Kconfig, although I
> > suppose it doesn't have to move it. I think some/all(?) other
> > multi-platform conversions have moved their main Kconfig option like
> > that though.
> 
> Thanks. I'm hoping that Arnd/Olof can pick this up. I'm not sure which
> version it will go into.
> 

Hmm, it certainly looks useful to me. I think it should go into the next
cleanup branch as a base, so others can build on top of it. We will
also need it for the Exynos multiplatform patches that I hope can land
in 3.10 as well.

Sneaking it in through the fixes branch would make life easier for us,
but it doesn't feel right.

	Arnd

On 3/5/2013 2:34 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 March 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> On 02/27/13 15:43, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>> Seems simple enough it doesn't really need many, but for Tegra,
>>> Acked-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
>>>
>>> Which kernel is this going into? It's possible Tegra will get converted
>>> to multi-platform in 3.10, which might move that main ARCH_TEGRA block
>>> from arch/arm/Kconfig into arch/arm/mach-tegra/Kconfig, although I
>>> suppose it doesn't have to move it. I think some/all(?) other
>>> multi-platform conversions have moved their main Kconfig option like
>>> that though.
>> Thanks. I'm hoping that Arnd/Olof can pick this up. I'm not sure which
>> version it will go into.
>>
> Hmm, it certainly looks useful to me. I think it should go into the next
> cleanup branch as a base, so others can build on top of it. We will
> also need it for the Exynos multiplatform patches that I hope can land
> in 3.10 as well.
>
> Sneaking it in through the fixes branch would make life easier for us,
> but it doesn't feel right.

Arnd, can you pick this up into the arm-soc tree now? It would be good
to get this into next so that conflicts are avoided later on.

On 03/16/13 12:32, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 3/5/2013 2:34 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> On Tuesday 05 March 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>> On 02/27/13 15:43, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>> Seems simple enough it doesn't really need many, but for Tegra,
>>>> Acked-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
>>>>
>>>> Which kernel is this going into? It's possible Tegra will get converted
>>>> to multi-platform in 3.10, which might move that main ARCH_TEGRA block
>>>> from arch/arm/Kconfig into arch/arm/mach-tegra/Kconfig, although I
>>>> suppose it doesn't have to move it. I think some/all(?) other
>>>> multi-platform conversions have moved their main Kconfig option like
>>>> that though.
>>> Thanks. I'm hoping that Arnd/Olof can pick this up. I'm not sure which
>>> version it will go into.
>>>
>> Hmm, it certainly looks useful to me. I think it should go into the next
>> cleanup branch as a base, so others can build on top of it. We will
>> also need it for the Exynos multiplatform patches that I hope can land
>> in 3.10 as well.
>>
>> Sneaking it in through the fixes branch would make life easier for us,
>> but it doesn't feel right.
> Arnd, can you pick this up into the arm-soc tree now? It would be good
> to get this into next so that conflicts are avoided later on.
>

Arnd?

On 03/26/13 10:34, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 03/16/13 12:32, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> On 3/5/2013 2:34 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 05 March 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>>> On 02/27/13 15:43, Stephen Warren wrote:
>>>>> Seems simple enough it doesn't really need many, but for Tegra,
>>>>> Acked-by: Stephen Warren <swarren@nvidia.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which kernel is this going into? It's possible Tegra will get converted
>>>>> to multi-platform in 3.10, which might move that main ARCH_TEGRA block
>>>>> from arch/arm/Kconfig into arch/arm/mach-tegra/Kconfig, although I
>>>>> suppose it doesn't have to move it. I think some/all(?) other
>>>>> multi-platform conversions have moved their main Kconfig option like
>>>>> that though.
>>>> Thanks. I'm hoping that Arnd/Olof can pick this up. I'm not sure which
>>>> version it will go into.
>>>>
>>> Hmm, it certainly looks useful to me. I think it should go into the next
>>> cleanup branch as a base, so others can build on top of it. We will
>>> also need it for the Exynos multiplatform patches that I hope can land
>>> in 3.10 as well.
>>>
>>> Sneaking it in through the fixes branch would make life easier for us,
>>> but it doesn't feel right.
>> Arnd, can you pick this up into the arm-soc tree now? It would be good
>> to get this into next so that conflicts are avoided later on.
>>
> Arnd?
>

Ping?

On Tuesday 09 April 2013, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Sneaking it in through the fixes branch would make life easier for us,
> >>> but it doesn't feel right.
> >> Arnd, can you pick this up into the arm-soc tree now? It would be good
> >> to get this into next so that conflicts are avoided later on.
> >>
> > Arnd?
> >
> 
> Ping?


Sorry for the long delay, you scrolled down from my unread emails twice.

Three tips for you to make it more likely to get a fast reaction time:

* Send the original patch to Olof and me, not just the reply to the
  on-list patch.
* Use the arm@kernel.org alias to reach us, since that will make the
  email go into the right folder
* Use the [GIT PULL] keyword in the subject line, ideally sending a
  pull request as well, instead of a separate email. While we do apply
  emails, It's often batch processing to apply everything and then
  we scan for emails that have PULL in the subject, while others
  can get lost.

I've applied it to the next/soc branch now.

	Arnd

On Tuesday 09 April 2013, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> I've applied it to the next/soc branch now.
> 

I just made up my mind again after I got a few merge conflicts. I have
added it to the next/multiplatform branch now instead of next/soc, since
a few of the Kconfig entries changed in this patch are moved to other
files in that branch.

I've also added an entry for mach-zynq, which has gained SMP support
in the meantime. I assume it uses TWD/SCU as it is otherwise rather close
to the ARM reference platforms.

	Arnd