lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Nov]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [patches] Re: [PATCH v9 03/12] dt-bindings: RISC-V CPU Bindings
From
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.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-11-20 20:46    [W:0.053 / U:10.460 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site