From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
To: u-boot@lists.denx.de
Subject: [U-Boot] ARM: PSCI 0.1 vs 0.2
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2014 10:05:49 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <547848FD.1090002@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <547837B2.1020700@web.de>
On 28/11/14 08:52, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2014-11-10 14:36, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 10/11/14 13:25, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>> On 2014-11-10 14:08, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>> On 10/11/14 12:51, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>>> Hi Marc,
>>>>>
>>>>> what is the motivation to expose a PSCI 0.1 interface in U-boot, instead
>>>>> of 0.2? Support for preexisting users of 0.1? The kernel seems to be
>>>>> happy with both, and I'm now wondering if we should actually add the
>>>>> legacy version to Jailhouse as well (I hope we can avoid this).
>>>>
>>>> The initial rational was simple: at the time this code was written, the
>>>> 0.2 spec still in review, and nobody was implementing it. Supporting 0.1
>>>> was the only viable use-case.
>>>>
>>>>> Still studying the logic: Is it possible to provide both interfaces, and
>>>>> would it make sense?
>>>>
>>>> Supporting both is very easy. Just output the 0.2 function numbers that
>>>> actually make sense for 0.1 and have both compatible strings.
>>>
>>> Ah, cool - parameters and return values of, say, CPU_ON/OFF are
>>> compatible across both versions?
>>
>> That was the idea of the spec (broadly compatible across revisions...).
>
> There is one major problem with v0.2, though, and I bet this also
> applies to the ARMv8 implementation:
>
> v0.2 mandates that the firmware provides SYSTEM_RESET - that's rather
> simple - and SYSTEM_OFF. The latter seems non-trivial for the sunxi as
> the power controller is attached via i2c. I guess that will be quite a
> bit of code in the PSCI monitor for a feature that already works fine
> for Linux with v0.1. Or am I missing something?
I seem to remember that you're allowed to return something like "Not
Implemented" (of course, I could be wrong).
But even that is not that hard. I'm pretty sure the i2c pins can be
switched to be GPIOs, and bit-banging i2c is not too difficult (see
drivers/i2c/algos/i2c-algo-bit.c).
I was hoping for something slightly simpler though...
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-11-28 10:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-11-10 12:51 [U-Boot] ARM: PSCI 0.1 vs 0.2 Jan Kiszka
2014-11-10 13:08 ` Marc Zyngier
2014-11-10 13:25 ` Jan Kiszka
2014-11-10 13:29 ` bhupesh.sharma at freescale.com
2014-11-10 13:35 ` Jan Kiszka
2014-11-10 13:36 ` Marc Zyngier
2014-11-28 8:52 ` Jan Kiszka
2014-11-28 10:05 ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2014-11-28 10:24 ` Jan Kiszka
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=547848FD.1090002@arm.com \
--to=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
--cc=u-boot@lists.denx.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox