[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1303261553120.4430@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:55:55 +0000
From: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@...citrix.com>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"konrad.wilk@...cle.com" <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>,
Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@....com>,
"linux@....linux.org.uk" <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
"nico@...aro.org" <nico@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] [RFC] arm: use PSCI if available
On Tue, 26 Mar 2013, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Tuesday 26 March 2013, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > They can even base the implementation of their smp_ops on the current
> > > psci code, in order to facilitate that I could get rid of psci_ops
> > > (which initialization is based on device tree) and export the psci_cpu_*
> > > functions instead, so that they can be called directly by other smp_ops.
> >
> > Again, I think this destroys the layering. The whole point is that the PSCI
> > functions are called from within something that understands precisely how to
> > talk to the firmware and what it is capable of.
>
> Right, we probably the psci smp ops to be separate from the rest of the psci
> code, but I also think that Stefano is right that we should let any platform
> use the psci smp ops if possible, rather than having to implement their own.
[...]
> The part that I'm most interested in is making it possible for a platform
> to kill off its native smp ops in the kernel by implementing the psci
> ops. I think it's a good strategy to use psci by default if both
> platform and psci implementations are available.
I fully agree, and Xen would use it as is.
If the psci node on DT only signifies the presence of psci, not that it
should be used for smp_ops, then we need another DT node or property to
say "this machine uses smp_psci_ops".
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists