From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com (Sebastian Hesselbarth) Date: Thu, 03 Apr 2014 09:40:42 +0000 Subject: [PATCH 2/3] ARM: dts: document the berlin enable-method property In-Reply-To: <533D268E.7070502@free-electrons.com> References: <1396512496-8030-1-git-send-email-antoine.tenart@free-electrons.com> <1396512496-8030-3-git-send-email-antoine.tenart@free-electrons.com> <20140403162202.79b63729@xhacker> <533D21AF.2070508@free-electrons.com> <533D268E.7070502@free-electrons.com> Message-ID: <533D2C9A.6010302@gmail.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 04/03/2014 09:14 AM, Antoine T?nart wrote: > On 03/04/2014 10:54, Antoine T?nart wrote: >> On 03/04/2014 10:22, Jisheng Zhang wrote: >>> On Thu, 3 Apr 2014 01:08:15 -0700 >>> Antoine T?nart wrote: >>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Antoine T?nart >>>> --- >>>> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt | 2 ++ >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt >>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt index >>>> 333f4aea3029..a9e42a2dbc99 100644 --- >>>> a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt +++ >>>> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt @@ -185,6 +185,8 @@ >>>> nodes >>>> to be present and contain the properties described below. >>>> "qcom,gcc-msm8660" >>>> "qcom,kpss-acc-v1" >>>> "qcom,kpss-acc-v2" >>>> + "marvell,88de31-smp" - cpu-core handling for >>> >>> why not "marvell,berlin-smp"? >> >> We have SMP on the BG2 and the BG2Q currently. Future boards may not be >> compatible with this method (BG3 ?), I think "marvell,berlin-smp" is too >> generic. >> >> We could use "marvell,88de31xx-smp" as Alexandre suggested. > > "marvell,88de31xx-smp" is not a good choice too, since futur SoC may > match the "xx" and not use this method. A better way should be to use > the first SoC implementing the feature, so "marvell,88de3100". Never introduce the SoC numbers, we have chosen to stick with berlin2{,cd,q} so use that. Given the comment from Mark Rutland and Russell King here[1], I'd rather concentrate on a proper SMP implementation. Unfortunately, I haven't found a good documentation about the requirements nor call sequence - but I haven't looked hard. Having said that, can we postpone the DT enable method patches until we agreed on a better SMP implementation? Sebastian [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg318585.html