lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Add smp booting support for Qualcomm ARMv8 SoCs
From
Date

> On Apr 14, 2015, at 11:36 AM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 11:05:29AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 12:37:06PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>> This patch set adds support for SMP boot on the MSM8x16 family of Qualcomm SoCs.
>>>
>>> To support SMP on the MSM8x16 SoCs we need to add ARMv8/64-bit SCM interfaces to
>>> setup the boot/release addresses for the secondary CPUs. In addition we need
>>> a uniquie set of cpu ops. I'm aware the desired methods for booting secondary
>>> CPUs is either via spintable or PSCI. However, these SoCs are shipping with a
>>> firmware that does not support those methods.
>>
>> And the reason is? Some guesses:
>>
>> a) QC doesn't think boot interface (and cpuidle) standardisation is
>> worth the effort (to put it nicely)
>> b) The hardware was available before we even mentioned PSCI
>> c) PSCI is not suitable for the QC's SCM interface
>> d) Any combination of the above
>>
>> I strongly suspect it's point (a). Should we expect future QC hardware
>> to do the same?
>>
>> You could argue the reason was (b), though we've been discussing PSCI
>> for at least two years and, according to QC press releases, MSM8916
>> started sampling in 2014.
>>
>> The only valid reason is (c) and if that's the case, I would expect a
>> proposal for a new firmware interface protocol (it could be PSCI-based),
>> well documented, that can be shared with others that may encounter the
>> same shortcomings.
>
> There's no need to even fork PSCI. The PSCI specification will evolve
> over time as vendors request changes and we try to accomodate them.
>
> If there's something that PSCI doesn't do that you need it to, contact
> ARM. Other vendors already have.

But what is someone to do between the period of getting PSCI spec updated and needing to ship a product with firmware?

The take still sounds like if you don’t implement an exact version of PSCI you are screwed from being supported in the upstream ARM64 kernel.

- k

--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-14 22:01    [W:0.152 / U:2.556 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site