From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: robherring2@gmail.com (Rob Herring) Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 10:04:04 -0500 Subject: [PATCH v3] [RFC] arm: use PSCI if available In-Reply-To: References: <1364388639-11210-1-git-send-email-stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> <20130327133811.GE18429@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> <20130327172306.GB20990@mudshark.cambridge.arm.com> Message-ID: <51545BE4.9050206@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 03/28/2013 09:51 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > >> - the interface to bring up secondary cpus is different and based on >> PSCI, in fact Xen is going to add a PSCI node to the device tree so that >> Dom0 can use it. >> >> Oh wait, Dom0 is not going to use the PSCI interface even if the node is >> present on device tree because it's going to prefer the platform smp_ops >> instead. > > Waitaminute... I must have missed this part. > > Who said platform specific methods must be used in preference to PSCI? I did. Specifically, I said the platform should be allowed to provide its own smp_ops. A platform may need to do addtional things on top of PSCI for example. > If DT does provide PSCI description, then PSCI should be used. Doing > otherwise is senseless. If PSCI is not to be used, then it should not > be present in DT. You can't assume the DT and kernel are in-sync. For example, I've added PSCI in the firmware and DTB (part of the firmware), but the highbank kernel may or may not use it depending if I convert it. Rob > > > Nicolas > > _______________________________________________ > linux-arm-kernel mailing list > linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org > http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel >