[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <mhng-fdb283aa-89d9-4de9-95f7-7886ed854df1@palmer-si-x1c4>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2018 10:16:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...ive.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
CC: anup@...infault.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
mark.rutland@....com, Damien.LeMoal@....com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, atish.patra@....com,
linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org, tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 3/5] RISC-V: Add cpu_operatios structure
On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 23:03:53 PDT (-0700), Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 10:34:38PM +0530, Anup Patel wrote:
>> The cpu_operations is certainly required because SOC vendors will add
>> vendor-specific mechanism to selectively bringing-up CPUs/HARTs instead
>> of all CPUs entering Linux kernel simultaneously. In fact, we might also end-up
>> having CPU ON/OFF operations in SBI.
>
> Your forgot an essential part in your analysis: Right now we only have
> one single way to deal with cpu on/offlining, and that is the dummy WFI
> kind. Once other ways show up we can build proper infrastructure, but
> until then this is just a white elephant as we have no idea how these
> abstractions will look like.
>
> And my hope is that we'll just see new SBI calls, in which case we'll
> just need SBI and dummy version and can avoid all the indirect calls.
Yes, the goal here is to define one good interface via the SBI. We've got a
session at Plumbers this year and one of the blocks is to sit down and talk
about this API, hopefully we can make some headway while there.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists