lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Mar]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v4 2/2] arm: prefer PSCI for SMP bringup
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013, Stefano Stabellini wrote:

> On Fri, 29 Mar 2013, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > This way the
> > priority order would be:
> >
> > - If mdesc->smp_init is non null then use that.
> >
> > - Otherwise, if PSCI is available then use that.
> >
> > - Otherwise use mdesc->smp.
> >
> > This way, if the PSCI default has to be overriden (like in the MCPM case
> > because it needs to wrap PSCI itself, or to cover Rob's concern) then
> > this can be achieved at run time on a per mdesc basis.
>
> Actually that's not a bad idea, it could make everybody happy.
> What about the following, in this precise order:
>
> - if a xen hypervisor node is present on device tree, use PSCI;
> - otherwise if mdesc->smp_init is non null then use it;
> - otherwise if PSCI is available then use it;
> - otherwise use mdesc->smp.
>
> It's the most practical solution to satisfy everybody's needs.

Regardless of my previous email suggesting a mdesc for xen, I still
don't understand why you need this absolute priority for Xen. Isn't my
original suggestion sufficient?

The likely reason why mdesc->smp_init might be needed is to provide an
extra encapsulation layer before actually using PSCI instead of using it
directly. Why would you need to bypass that?


Nicolas


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-03-29 19:41    [W:0.063 / U:0.172 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site