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. _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot
