Messages in this thread | | | From | Matthias Brugger <> | Subject | Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/6] Document: bindings: DT: Add SMP enable method for MT6580 SoC platform | Date | Sat, 18 Jul 2015 00:04:18 +0200 |
| |
On Saturday, July 11, 2015 06:38:06 PM Yingjoe Chen wrote: > On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 11:03 +0800, Yingjoe Chen wrote: > > On Fri, 2015-06-19 at 02:01 +0800, Scott Shu wrote: > > > For MT6580 SoC platform, the secondary cores are in powered off state > > > as default, so compared with MT65xx series SoC, one new enable method > > > is needed. This method using the SPM (System Power Manager) inside > > > the SCYSYS to control the CPU power. > > > --- > > > > > > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt | 1 + > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt > > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt index ac2903d..fb80b2e > > > 100644 > > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt > > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt > > > @@ -194,6 +194,7 @@ nodes to be present and contain the properties > > > described below.> > > > > "marvell,armada-380-smp" > > > "marvell,armada-390-smp" > > > "marvell,armada-xp-smp" > > > > > > + "mediatek,mt6580-smp" > > > > > > "mediatek,mt65xx-smp" > > > "mediatek,mt81xx-tz-smp" > > > "qcom,gcc-msm8660" > > > > Hi > > > > It seems we have 3 different kinds of cpu enable method now, and > > mt65xx-smp doesn't cover all mt65xx series. So maybe it make sense to > > change naming before it got merged. > > > > Short summary for these methods: > > > > mt65xx-smp: For mt65xx socs which wakeup all cores at boot. > > > > Tested on mt6589 by Matthias. > > > > mt6580-smp: Only first core is alive at boot, so need to wakeup > > > > other cores using SPM. AFAIK only for mt6580 now. > > > > mt81xx-tz-smp: For soc which wakeup all cores at boot, and have > > > > trustzone firmware. Suitable for mt8127, mt8135. > > Hi Matthias, Arnd, > > Any suggestion on the naming? Is it ok if I just rename mt65xx-smp to > mt6589-smp since that's the only one we tested? >
Yes, that's fine for me.
| |