lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH 5/5] arm64: qcom: add cpu operations
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 10:04:25AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
> 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.

An important aspect is that with spin-table you don't get CPU off or
suspend and some kernel functionality will be missing (kexec being one
of them).

--
Catalin


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-15 17:21    [W:0.071 / U:0.864 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site