linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] arm64: qcom: add cpu operations

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]

Date:	Wed, 15 Apr 2015 10:04:25 +0100
From:	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
To:	Al Stone <ahs3@...hat.com>
Cc:	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@....com>,
	"linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
	Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@....com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"arm@...nel.org" <arm@...nel.org>,
	Abhimanyu Kapur <abhimany@...eaurora.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] arm64: qcom: add cpu operations

On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 11:52:39PM +0100, Al Stone wrote:
> On 04/14/2015 10:29 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt
> >> index 8b9e0a9..35cabe5 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt
> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt
> >> @@ -185,6 +185,8 @@ nodes to be present and contain the properties described below.
> >>                           be one of:
> >>                              "psci"
> >>                              "spin-table"
> > 
> > In the case of these two, there's documentation on what the OS, FW, and
> > HW are expected to do. There's a PSCI spec, and spin-table is documented
> > in booting.txt (which is admittedly not fantastic).
> > [snip...]
> 
> Perhaps a side topic, but I thought spin-table was being actively discouraged
> for arm64.  Forgive me if I missed the memo, but is that not correct?

We prefer that people implement PSCI, and if they must use spin-table,
each CPU has its own release address.

However, we don't want implementation-specific mechanisms, and
spin-table is preferable to these.

Mark.
--
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/