From: mark.rutland@arm.com (Mark Rutland)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH V3 0/6] ARM64: Add support for FSL's LS2085A SoC
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 17:31:30 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140903163130.GM3127@leverpostej> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2843702.jP4KCB2Kid@wuerfel>
On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 05:18:42PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Wednesday 03 September 2014 17:09:36 Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 05:05:51PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 03 September 2014 16:56:55 Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > > Personally I'd like to see such things patched by the firmware/loader
> > > > where possible (ideally with some way of switching said patching off if
> > > > we really know better). We already expect the loader to patch memory
> > > > nodes where memory can be dynamically populated.
> > > >
> > > > I don't see why we should tie the in-kernel dts to a particular firmware
> > > > revision. Having such properties in the in-kernel dts is only going to
> > > > mislead. The arm64 boot-wrapper patches dts for PSCI, but for
> > > > compatibility with old wrappers the in-kernel dts must forever say
> > > > spin-table is used to bring up secondaries.
> > >
> > > But the kernel has never supported this platform with a non-PSCI
> > > enable method, why should we provide compatibility for something
> > > we never had upstream?
> >
> > I'm not arguing we should.
> >
> > What I'm suggesting is there wouldn't be an enable-method at all (so we
> > won't bring up secondaries at all unless that's patched).
>
> Ok, I see the appeal in forcing boot loaders to put some patch
> up the dtbs with whatever software interfaces they provide.
> What I'm interested in however is making it harder for the boot
> loader to use something other than psci.
I see.
I agree that we presently want systems to implement PSCI (0.2+), and we
certainly do not want anything that's platform-specific.
However, I'm not sure I follow the reasoning for making this
significantly harder, and even ignoring that I don't think this does
make things significantly harder. Especially so if we have a PSCI node
but not an enable method -- in that case its trivial to patch in an
unrelated enable-method anyhow.
Mark.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-09-03 16:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-09-03 15:13 [PATCH V3 0/6] ARM64: Add support for FSL's LS2085A SoC Bhupesh Sharma
2014-09-03 15:13 ` [PATCH V3 1/6] Documentation: DT: Add bindings for FSL NS16550A UART Bhupesh Sharma
2014-09-03 15:13 ` [PATCH V3 2/6] Documentation: DT: Add entry for FSL LS2085A SoC and Simulator model Bhupesh Sharma
2014-09-03 15:13 ` [PATCH V3 3/6] Documentation: DT: Add entry for FSL Management Complex Bhupesh Sharma
2014-09-03 15:13 ` [PATCH V3 4/6] arm64: Add DTS support for FSL's LS2085A SoC Bhupesh Sharma
2014-09-03 18:34 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-09-04 7:55 ` bhupesh.sharma at freescale.com
2014-09-20 20:35 ` bhupesh.sharma at freescale.com
2014-09-03 15:13 ` [PATCH V3 5/6] arm64: dts/Makefile: Add support for FSL's LS2085A simulator model Bhupesh Sharma
2014-09-03 15:13 ` [PATCH V3 6/6] arm64: Add support for FSL's LS2085A SoC in Kconfig and defconfig Bhupesh Sharma
2014-09-03 15:29 ` [PATCH V3 0/6] ARM64: Add support for FSL's LS2085A SoC Arnd Bergmann
2014-09-03 15:36 ` bhupesh.sharma at freescale.com
2014-09-03 15:39 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-09-03 15:42 ` bhupesh.sharma at freescale.com
2014-09-03 15:56 ` Mark Rutland
2014-09-03 16:05 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-09-03 16:09 ` Mark Rutland
2014-09-03 16:10 ` bhupesh.sharma at freescale.com
2014-09-03 16:18 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-09-03 16:31 ` Mark Rutland [this message]
2014-09-03 18:31 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-09-04 9:13 ` Mark Rutland
2014-09-04 9:39 ` Arnd Bergmann
2014-09-04 16:32 ` Stuart Yoder
2014-09-09 11:46 ` bhupesh.sharma at freescale.com
2014-09-09 13:42 ` Catalin Marinas
2014-09-20 20:35 ` bhupesh.sharma at freescale.com
2014-09-22 13:55 ` Mark Rutland
2014-09-24 14:50 ` Stuart Yoder
2014-09-03 18:30 ` Geoff Levand
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140903163130.GM3127@leverpostej \
--to=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.