From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: galak@codeaurora.org (Kumar Gala) Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2015 09:44:11 -0500 Subject: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Add smp booting support for Qualcomm ARMv8 SoCs In-Reply-To: <245B9FDD-E1B5-41E4-9F24-4D5BB86C450E@codeaurora.org> References: <1428601031-5366-1-git-send-email-galak@codeaurora.org> <20150410100529.GA6854@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <493B15F8-0EBE-4633-9604-671EF403F36E@codeaurora.org> <20150410161052.GF6854@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <20150413094117.GA2745@e104818-lin.cambridge.arm.com> <245B9FDD-E1B5-41E4-9F24-4D5BB86C450E@codeaurora.org> Message-ID: <97B1A2D4-6F6B-433B-83E6-9C8A95D1BFC6@codeaurora.org> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org > On Apr 14, 2015, at 9:21 AM, Kumar Gala wrote: > >>>> >>>> So please come up with proper technical arguments rather than the kernel >>>> should take whatever SoC vendors dreamt of. >>> >>> There is no technical argument to be made. This is about the >>> community and you as maintainer wanting to accept code that complies >>> to your decision or not. >> >> If you are not willing to make technical arguments, I don't have to >> provide any further reasons in this thread. It's your choice. In the >> meantime, the short answer is NAK. I assume you would than NAK someone trying to get support for their Nexus 9 Tablet using a Tegra K1. It appears the shipping code for that device didn?t use PSCI (again guessing because it wasn?t available at the time). https://android.googlesource.com/kernel/tegra/+/android-tegra-flounder-3.10-lollipop-release/arch/arm64/mach-tegra/platsmp.c If so, I find this counter to the Linux kernel communities normal desire to support the most hardware platforms. - k -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project