[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201303271750.52015.arnd@arndb.de>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 17:50:51 +0000
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
Cc: Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>,
Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
"linux@....linux.org.uk" <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
"nico@...aro.org" <nico@...aro.org>,
Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@....com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org"
<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] [RFC] arm: use PSCI if available
On Wednesday 27 March 2013, Will Deacon wrote:
> The channel is common, sure, but I wouldn't expect the semantics of each
> call to be identical between firmware implementations (going back to my
> previous examples of CPU IDs and implementation-defined state parameters).
>
> If a platform happens to have an id-mapping from smp_operations to psci,
> then I still think there should be an indirection in there so that we have
> the flexibility to change the smp_operations if we wish and not give
> platforms the false impression that these two things are equivalent.
I think the only reasonably implementation for psci is if we can assume
that each callback with a specific property name has a well-defined behavior,
and we should mandate that every platform that implements the callbacks
we need for SMP actually implements them according to the spec.
What would be the point of a standard psci interface if the specific
implementation are not required to follow the same semantics?
Arnd
--
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