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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox