[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1303271811380.4430@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:14:48 +0000
From: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
CC: Rob Herring <robherring2@...il.com>,
Stefano Stabellini <Stefano.Stabellini@...citrix.com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
"xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com" <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
"linux@....linux.org.uk" <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@....com>,
"nico@...aro.org" <nico@...aro.org>,
"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 Wed, 27 Mar 2013, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 March 2013, Rob Herring wrote:
> > No, I was thinking in the case of Xen and mach-virt, you would not set
> > mdesc->smp. So you would have something like this:
> >
> > if (mdesc->smp)
> > smp_set_ops(mdesc->smp);
> > else
> > smp_set_ops(&psci_smp_ops);
>
> The case that Stefano is interested in if obviously other platforms
> that can either run as Dom0 under Xen with psci_smp_ops or natively
> with their own smp_ops. A similar case would be a platform that
> may implement psci using smc when run in secure mode but provide
> its own smp_ops when run natively.
That's correct.
> In both cases, it would be simpler to use psci if available but
> fall back to mdesc->smp otherwise.
I agree.
--
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