From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Rutland Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ARM: dts: document the berlin enable-method property Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2014 10:02:47 +0100 Message-ID: <20140403090247.GM16420@e106331-lin.cambridge.arm.com> References: <1396512496-8030-1-git-send-email-antoine.tenart@free-electrons.com> <1396512496-8030-3-git-send-email-antoine.tenart@free-electrons.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1396512496-8030-3-git-send-email-antoine.tenart@free-electrons.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Antoine =?utf-8?Q?T=C3=A9nart?= Cc: "sebastian.hesselbarth@gmail.com" , "zmxu@marvell.com" , "jszhang@marvell.com" , "devicetree@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "alexandre.belloni@free-electrons.com" , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 09:08:15AM +0100, Antoine T=C3=A9nart wrote: > Signed-off-by: Antoine T=C3=A9nart > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >=20 > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt b/Documen= tation/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 de= scribed below. > "qcom,gcc-msm8660" > "qcom,kpss-acc-v1" > "qcom,kpss-acc-v2" > + "marvell,88de31-smp" - cpu-core handling for Berlin > + SoC from Marvell starting with 88de31 It would probably be best to add an enable-method directory and documen= t what each of these mean (what's expected of the platform, what steps an OS should make to bring up and/or tear down CPUs). While it's nice to factor this out of the kernel, I'd like this to be better-defined such that it's clear what the expectations of each enable-method are. That ways it iss possible for OSs other than Linux t= o make use of the enable-method information (as it won't be an opaque reference to Linux internals), and we can have a clear definition of each enable-method independent of any implementation details. Going forward I would like to see fewer implementation-specific protocols for bringing up secondaries, and a move to fewer more standardised mechanisms like PSCI. I realise that might not be possible in all cases, but it would be nice to avoid a proliferation of enable-methods with single users. Cheers, Mark.