[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1304251158080.4180@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:08:02 +0100
From: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@...citrix.com>
To: Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>
CC: 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>,
"arnd@...db.de" <arnd@...db.de>,
"nicolas.pitre@...aro.org" <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>,
"rob.herring@...xeda.com" <rob.herring@...xeda.com>,
"linux@....linux.org.uk" <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
"olof@...om.net" <olof@...om.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 1/2] arm: introduce psci_smp_ops
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 11:12:54AM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Thu, 25 Apr 2013, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * cpu_suspend Suspend the execution on a CPU
> > > > + * @state we don't currently describe affinity levels, so just pass 0.
> > > > + * @entry_point the first instruction to be executed on return
> > > > + * returns 0 success, < 0 on failure
> > > > + *
> > > > + * cpu_off Power down a CPU
> > > > + * @state we don't currently describe affinity levels, so just pass 0.
> > > > + * no return on successful call
> > > > + *
> > > > + * cpu_on Power up a CPU
> > > > + * @cpuid cpuid of target CPU, as from MPIDR
> > > > + * @entry_point the first instruction to be executed on return
> > > > + * returns 0 success, < 0 on failure
> > > > + *
> > > > + * migrate Migrate the context to a different CPU
> > > > + * @cpuid cpuid of target CPU, as from MPIDR
> > > > + * returns 0 success, < 0 on failure
> > > > + *
> > > > + */
> > >
> > > Can you move these comments into psci-smp.c please? They're really specific
> > > to the implementation there, and if we put them in a header we're lying to
> > > ourselves about the parameters actually described by the PSCI specification.
> >
> > You have a good point about the PSCI spec.
> >
> > However from the Linux POV these comments should regard the functions
> > exported by psci_operations, not the firmware interface, this is why I
> > think it makes sense to keep them in psci.h.
> > What we are saying is for example that psci_operations.cpu_on returns 0
> > on success and < 0 on failure, and it takes a cpuid and an entry point
> > as parameters. We are not saying anything about the firmware interface.
>
> I disagree. You're explicitly stating that we pass the `cpuid of target CPU,
> as from MPIDR'. That's simply not true -- the firmware could choose any
> numbering scheme to identify the CPUs. For KVM and Xen, it *is* the mpidr,
> which is why psci-smp.c works at all, but that's where the comment belongs,
> not in this header file.
I see, you want to keep psci_operations true to the firmware interface
while explaining that psci_smp makes some assumptions about it.
So the comment should be something like:
/*
* psci_smp assumes that the following is true about PSCI:
*
* cpu_suspend Suspend the execution on a CPU
* @state we don't currently describe affinity levels, so just pass 0.
* @entry_point the first instruction to be executed on return
* returns 0 success, < 0 on failure
*
* cpu_off Power down a CPU
* @state we don't currently describe affinity levels, so just pass 0.
* no return on successful call
*
* cpu_on Power up a CPU
* @cpuid cpuid of target CPU, as from MPIDR
* @entry_point the first instruction to be executed on return
* returns 0 success, < 0 on failure
*
* migrate Migrate the context to a different CPU
* @cpuid cpuid of target CPU, as from MPIDR
* returns 0 success, < 0 on failure
*
*/
--
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