linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: EXYNOS: mcpm: Don't rely on firmware's secondary_cpu

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.11.1406091617181.25775@knanqh.ubzr>
Date:	Mon, 9 Jun 2014 16:22:41 -0400 (EDT)
From:	Nicolas Pitre <nicolas.pitre@...aro.org>
To:	Andrew Bresticker <abrestic@...omium.org>
cc:	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
	Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>,
	Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@...sung.com>,
	Abhilash Kesavan <a.kesavan@...sung.com>,
	Inderpal Singh <inderpal.s@...sung.com>,
	Thomas Abraham <thomas.ab@...sung.com>,
	Olof Johansson <olof@...om.net>,
	Tushar Behera <trblinux@...il.com>,
	Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@...labora.co.uk>,
	linux-samsung-soc <linux-samsung-soc@...r.kernel.org>,
	Russell King <linux@....linux.org.uk>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: EXYNOS: mcpm: Don't rely on firmware's
 secondary_cpu_start

On Mon, 9 Jun 2014, Andrew Bresticker wrote:

> > [1] While waiting for the forth-coming patch from Andrew to enable the
> >     CCI port for the boot cluster), I do this from u-boot before starting
> >     the kernel (based on earlier email from Doug):
> >
> >     mw.l 10d25000 3  # Enable CCI from U-Boot
> 
> From the other thread, it sounds like Nicolas wants enabling of the
> boot cluster's CCI port to be done unconditionally for all MCPM
> platforms.  Nicolas, are you preparing a patch for this or should I?

I would like confirmation this indeed solves your problem first before I 
go ahead with it.

> The only issue I see with making the MCPM loopback generic is that
> although all current mainline MCPM platforms have the same cache flush
> procedure, a future platform could be different.

If you look at my patch the cache flush is factored out.


Nicolas
--
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/