On Wednesday 27 March 2013, Will Deacon wrote:
> The channel is common, sure, but I wouldn't expect the semantics of each
> call to be identical between firmware implementations (going back to my
> previous examples of CPU IDs and implementation-defined state parameters).
>
> If a platform happens to have an id-mapping from smp_operations to psci,
> then I still think there should be an indirection in there so that we have
> the flexibility to change the smp_operations if we wish and not give
> platforms the false impression that these two things are equivalent.
I think the only reasonably implementation for psci is if we can assume
that each callback with a specific property name has a well-defined behavior,
and we should mandate that every platform that implements the callbacks
we need for SMP actually implements them according to the spec.
What would be the point of a standard psci interface if the specific
implementation are not required to follow the same semantics?
Arnd
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
