[PATCH v2 1/3] arm64: spin-table: handle unmapped cpu-release-addrs

[catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas)]

On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 01:06:09AM +0100, Leif Lindholm wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 03:38:04PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 03:35:55PM +0100, Mark Salter wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2014-08-15 at 15:28 +0200, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > > On 15 August 2014 14:53, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 01:07:16PM +0100, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> > > > >> On 15 August 2014 13:57, Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> wrote:
> > > > >> > I was planning to take all of these for 3.18 as there's no regression here
> > > > >> > (the fuzzing is a new debug feature and defaults to `n'). Do you think these
> > > > >> > qualify as -rc1 material?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Considering that TEXT_OFFSET fuzzing is recommended to be turned on
> > > > >> for distro kernels, I would say this is definitely appropriate for
> > > > >> 3.17
> > > > >
> > > > > Whilst I see that in the commit log, the same recommendation doesn't appear
> > > > > in the Kconfig text and I'm not sure that it's such a wise thing to say
> > > > > either. From a distribution's point of view, I think I'd want any kernel
> > > > > issues to be as reproducible as possible, and fuzzing the text offset seems
> > > > > to go against that.
> > > > 
> > > > OK. There is one other real world issue that 3/3 addresses, which are
> > > > platforms that have memreserves at the base of DRAM containing bits of
> > > > UEFI itself (this is what got this whole discussion going in the first
> > > > place). Currently, we cannot boot via UEFI on these platforms, as the
> > > > EFI stub will only consider base of DRAM + TEXT_OFFSET as an option,
> > > > and fail the boot if it is not available.
> > > > 
> > > > If this is something that could wait until 3.18 as well (Mark S?),
> > > > then it's fine by me.
> > > 
> > > I don't see a problem with waiting until 3.18.
> > 
> > Cheers, I've applied the series to our for-next branch and I'll push
> > everything out at -rc1.
> 
> Late to the discussion since I was on an 11h flight, and still chiming
> in since I don't think previous speakers were explicit enough about
> the implication:
> Bumping 3/3 to 3.18 means the upstream kernel will not boot on AMD
> Seattle until at least December. This sounds suboptimal to me.

Not unless they use PSCI. That's already working (the spin-table is
meant for platforms where PSCI cannot be implemented).

BTW, is Seattle officially supported by the mainline kernel (it was
barely announced AFAICT)?

-- 
Catalin