From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mark Rutland Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 16:37:14 +0100 Subject: [U-Boot] ARMv8 spin-table patches In-Reply-To: <53C43BC6.2020507@freescale.com> References: <53AD97BB.4020004@freescale.com> <20140627164405.GY9006@bill-the-cat> <20140704092909.GE31812@leverpostej> <1404791280.21434.270.camel@snotra.buserror.net> <20140714140349.GE26465@leverpostej> <53C43BC6.2020507@freescale.com> Message-ID: <20140716153714.GA30313@leverpostej> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: u-boot@lists.denx.de On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 09:21:26PM +0100, York Sun wrote: > On 07/14/2014 07:03 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: > > Unfortunately I don't have an answer to that; the arm64 Linux spin-table > > documentation and code were all written before I was involved. > > > > The unfortunate truth is that a lot of the ARM DT and boot unification > > work was done somewhat blindly, with many subtleties being lost. Someone > > implemented spin-table with a shared address because it happened to be > > easier, and then it got copied. Now that people are actively using it > > it's not possible to remove it, and it's difficult to dissuade others > > from following the crowd. > > > > If U-Boot provides each CPU with its own unique address, then that would > > be fantastic, and certainly avoids one nasty edge-case. > > In the patch set I sent for review, each CPU has its own spin table. It has an > option to use a single release address, or individual release address. Ok, each having their own table is good. I would strongly recommend against sharing the release address for the reasons I described in my earlier email. Cheers, Mark.