Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 20 Nov 2017 11:45:32 -0800 (PST) | Subject | Re: [patches] Re: [PATCH v9 03/12] dt-bindings: RISC-V CPU Bindings | From | Palmer Dabbelt <> |
| |
On Sun, 19 Nov 2017 23:35:28 PST (-0800), j.neuschaefer@gmx.net wrote: > Hi Palmer, > > On Thu, Oct 05, 2017 at 11:16:33AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > [...] >> I would *strongly* recommend that from day one, you determine the SMP >> bringup mechanism via an enable-method property, and document the >> contract with FW/bootloader somewhere in the kernel tree.
Sorry, I forgot about this. I've prepared a patch.
> Somewhat, but not quite related: Please consider making the availability > of the Supervisor Binary Interface explicit in the devicetree. > I understand that the general plan is to make the SBI a mandatory > feature of every RISC-V system capable of running Linux, but I do want > to explore the possibility of running without run-time resident firmware > at some point in the future. Thus it would be nice if the devicetree > would indicate the presence of the SBI from the start, to avoid having > to invent a way to express its *absence* later on. > > It could look something like this (modelled after qcom,scm): > > / { > firmware { > sbi { > compatible = "riscv,sbi"; > }; > }; > }; > > This topic may warrant some discussion, because other people may have > different opinions, and there hasn't been a discussion about it, AFAICS.
I don't think there's any penalty to putting it in the device tree, I'll send a patch.
|  |