[PATCH V3 0/6] ARM64: Add support for FSL's LS2085A SoC

bhupesh.sharma at freescale.com
2014-09-03T16:10:39Z

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Rutland [mailto:mark.rutland at arm.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2014 9:40 PM
> To: Arnd Bergmann
> Cc: Sharma Bhupesh-B45370; Catalin Marinas; Will Deacon;
> grant.likely at secretlab.ca; Marc Zyngier; rob.herring at linaro.org; linux-
> arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org; Yoder Stuart-B08248; Basu Arnab-B45036
> Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 0/6] ARM64: Add support for FSL's LS2085A SoC
>
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 05:05:51PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Wednesday 03 September 2014 16:56:55 Mark Rutland wrote:
> > > I had asked for the FW to patch up the enable-method (and omit this
> > > in the in-kernel dts) as this is something that may vary over the
> > > lifetime of the SoC independently from the fixed HW properties (it's
> > > a firmware property really).
> >
> > I agree in principle.
>
> Ok.
>
> > > 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).
>
> I didn't spot an enable-method in skimming this series, but I've not yet
> looked at this posting in-depth. Assuming there isn't one I don't see
> that we're providing compatibility with anything.

'enable-method' has been removed from this DTS since v2.

Regards,
Bhupesh