[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1303281617180.4430@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:20:10 +0000
From: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
CC: Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
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>,
"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
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 Thu, 28 Mar 2013, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 03:39:42PM +0000, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, Rob Herring wrote:
> >
> > > On 03/28/2013 09:51 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> - the interface to bring up secondary cpus is different and based on
> > > >> PSCI, in fact Xen is going to add a PSCI node to the device tree so that
> > > >> Dom0 can use it.
> > > >>
> > > >> Oh wait, Dom0 is not going to use the PSCI interface even if the node is
> > > >> present on device tree because it's going to prefer the platform smp_ops
> > > >> instead.
> > > >
> > > > Waitaminute... I must have missed this part.
> > > >
> > > > Who said platform specific methods must be used in preference to PSCI?
> > >
> > > I did. Specifically, I said the platform should be allowed to provide
> > > its own smp_ops. A platform may need to do addtional things on top of
> > > PSCI for example.
> >
> > Then the platform should have its special hook that would override the
> > default PSCI methods. But, by *default* the PSCI methods should be used
> > if the related DT information is present.
>
> I'm fine with a default PSCI-based implementation, providing that it's actually
> a layer between the smp ops and the psci code, not just glueing pointers
> together.
OK. I'll rename virt_smp_ops and move it to its own file rather than
psci.c and we'll take it from there.
> KVM and Xen can then use the default implementation, but it does mean that
> they have to agree on that interface as it expands in the future. If Xen
> relies on the default ops in order to boot, then that's a good incentive not
> to deviate from them on the firmware side.
I am OK with that.
--
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