On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 11:52:39PM +0100, Al Stone wrote: > On 04/14/2015 10:29 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: > >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt > >> b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt > >> index 8b9e0a9..35cabe5 100644 > >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt > >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt > >> @@ -185,6 +185,8 @@ nodes to be present and contain the properties > >> described below. > >> be one of: > >> "psci" > >> "spin-table" > > > > In the case of these two, there's documentation on what the OS, FW, and > > HW are expected to do. There's a PSCI spec, and spin-table is documented > > in booting.txt (which is admittedly not fantastic). > > [snip...] > > Perhaps a side topic, but I thought spin-table was being actively discouraged > for arm64. Forgive me if I missed the memo, but is that not correct?
We prefer that people implement PSCI, and if they must use spin-table, each CPU has its own release address. However, we don't want implementation-specific mechanisms, and spin-table is preferable to these. Mark. -- 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/
