On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 03:39:42PM +0000, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, Rob Herring wrote: > > > > > On 03/28/2013 09:51 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote: > > > > On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > > > > > > > >> - the interface to bring up secondary cpus is different and based on > > > >> PSCI, in fact Xen is going to add a PSCI node to the device tree so > > > >> that > > > >> Dom0 can use it. > > > >> > > > >> Oh wait, Dom0 is not going to use the PSCI interface even if the node > > > >> is > > > >> present on device tree because it's going to prefer the platform > > > >> smp_ops > > > >> instead. > > > > > > > > Waitaminute... I must have missed this part. > > > > > > > > Who said platform specific methods must be used in preference to PSCI? > > > > > > I did. Specifically, I said the platform should be allowed to provide > > > its own smp_ops. A platform may need to do addtional things on top of > > > PSCI for example. > > > > Then the platform should have its special hook that would override the > > default PSCI methods. But, by *default* the PSCI methods should be used > > if the related DT information is present. > > I'm fine with a default PSCI-based implementation, providing that it's > actually > a layer between the smp ops and the psci code, not just glueing pointers > together.
Absolutely. Even in the MCPM case, the PSCI is wrapped into a MCPM backend while MCPM provides its own SMP ops methods. Nicolas -- 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/
