On Mon, 2013-04-22 at 17:07 +0100, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> Sure there are ways to screw up Xen support from within this hook, but
> that can be achieved in many other places. Will Xen take over every
> possible hooks in the kernel to prevent that from happening?
In the majority of the other case
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > Now, if the psci stuff can't be relied upon to provide the correct
> > > functionality, then that's a separate problem which needs addressing
> > > differently.
> > >
> > > This should allow the Xen problem to be resolved, because Xen will
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > I think the key thing that non-Xen folks aren't aware of is that
> > although Xen passes the majority of the underlying hardware to the dom0
> > kernel to manage one of the few things it does not expose to guests
> > (where "guests" includes dom0) is th
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-04-19 at 18:06 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Apr 2013, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > On Fri, 19 Apr 2013, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, 2013-04-19 at 16:47 +0100, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > > > No one should be pro
On Fri, 2013-04-19 at 18:06 +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Fri, 19 Apr 2013, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri, 2013-04-19 at 16:47 +0100, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > > No one should be probing registers without making sure it is safe to do
>
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 05:49:21PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > Please let's keep the order as we discussed. Otherwise this is just too
> > confusing (Russell's comment is a good example of that).
>
> You are right, it is confusing.
> By "keep
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 12:35:57PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 02:11:32PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > + psci_init();
> > > > #ifdef CONFIG_S
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 05:20:23PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > Remember, we're trying to move away from using "mdesc"s for platform
> > stuff, relying on things like DT and such like. We really should not
> > be going for mdesc-overri
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Apr 2013, Ian Campbell wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2013-04-19 at 16:47 +0100, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > No one should be probing registers without making sure it is safe to do
> > > so. Even on non virtualized hardware this can be a dangerous thin
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-04-19 at 16:47 +0100, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > No one should be probing registers without making sure it is safe to do
> > so. Even on non virtualized hardware this can be a dangerous thing to
> > do.
>
> Won't people writing per machine
On Fri, 2013-04-19 at 16:47 +0100, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> No one should be probing registers without making sure it is safe to do
> so. Even on non virtualized hardware this can be a dangerous thing to
> do.
Won't people writing per machine code consider, not unreasonably, that
having been call
On Fri, 19 Apr 2013, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Russell
On Thu, 2013-04-18 at 18:38 +0100, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > > This should al
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > > This should allow the Xen pr
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 02:11:32PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > > +
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > > This should allow the Xen problem to be resolved, because Xen will
> > > > provide t
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > This should allow the Xen problem to be resolved, because Xen will
> > > provide the PSCI operations, and it's correct in that case to overrid
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > > On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 02:11:32PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > + psci_init();
> > > > #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > > > if
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > This should allow the Xen problem to be resolved, because Xen will
> > provide the PSCI operations, and it's correct in that case to override
> > the platform's SMP operations.
>
> Yes, incre
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 02:11:32PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > + psci_init();
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > > if (is_smp()) {
> > > - smp_set_ops(mdesc->smp);
> > > +
On Thu, 18 Apr 2013, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 02:11:32PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > + psci_init();
> > #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> > if (is_smp()) {
> > - smp_set_ops(mdesc->smp);
> > + if (mdesc->smp)
> > + smp_set_ops
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 02:11:32PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> + psci_init();
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> if (is_smp()) {
> - smp_set_ops(mdesc->smp);
> + if (mdesc->smp)
> + smp_set_ops(mdesc->smp);
> + else if (psci_smp_available
Rename virt_smp_ops to psci_smp_ops and move them to arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c.
Remove mach-virt/platsmp.c, now unused.
Compile psci_smp if CONFIG_ARM_PSCI and CONFIG_SMP.
Add a cpu_die smp_op based on psci_ops.cpu_off.
Initialize PSCI before setting smp_ops in setup_arch.
Use psci_smp_ops if th
23 matches
Mail list logo
