From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sudeep.holla@arm.com (Sudeep Holla) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2017 15:09:35 +0100 Subject: [PATCH v2] arm64: dts: foundation-v8: Enable PSCI mode In-Reply-To: <8c4a4114-b7f7-301e-20b8-960e6234b661@linaro.org> References: <20170918153832.16356-1-daniel.thompson@linaro.org> <20170919183204.12751-1-daniel.thompson@linaro.org> <9a542b9a-3c37-ed8a-04e6-de41493f4b0d@linaro.org> <8c4a4114-b7f7-301e-20b8-960e6234b661@linaro.org> Message-ID: <521d6f60-ee90-bc96-97a7-1da33170a9c4@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 03/10/17 10:12, Daniel Thompson wrote: > On 02/10/17 18:26, Sudeep Holla wrote: >> Sorry for late response, I thought I had sent this mail out long back >> but was sitting in my draft :( > > No worries. I've been at Linaro connect this last week anyway. > > >> On 20/09/17 12:17, Daniel Thompson wrote: >>> On 20/09/17 10:42, Sudeep Holla wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 19/09/17 19:32, Daniel Thompson wrote: >>>>> Currently if the Foundation model is running ARM Trusted Firmware then >>>>> the kernel, which is configured to use spin tables, cannot start >>>>> secondary >>>>> processors or "power off" the simulation. >>>>> >>>>> After adding a couple of labels to the include file and splitting out >>>>> the >>>>> spin-table configuration into a header, we add a couple of new headers >>>>> together with two new DTs (GICv2+PSCI and GICv3+PSCI). >>>>> >>>>> The new GICv3+PSCI DT has been boot tested, the remaining three >>>>> (two of >>>>> which existed prior to this patch) have been "tested" by >>>>> decompiling the >>>>> blobs and comparing them against a reference. >>>>> >>>> >>>> How different are these from the ones hosted in [1] ? >>> >>> They look like they were either independently written or diverged a long >>> time ago. The existing kernel DTs describe hardware absent from the ARM >>> TF ones and vice versa. >>> >> >> OK. >> >>> With specific reference to PSCI it looks like my patches could perhaps >>> be improved by adding idle-state support. >> >> Yes I know. > > You want a v3 with it added? > No, that's fine. I have pushed this already [1] with Mark's ack for now. We can add it later after some testing, not urgent. -- Regards, Sudeep [1] https://git.kernel.org/sudeep.holla/linux/h/for-next/juno