Hi Christoffer, On 14 March 2014 09:19, Christoffer Dall <christoffer.d...@linaro.org> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:21:07PM +0530, Pranavkumar Sawargaonkar wrote: >> If we have in-kernel emulation of PSCI v0.2 for KVM ARM/ARM64 then >> we enable PSCI v0.2 for each VCPU at the time of VCPU init hence we >> need to provide PSCI v0.2 function IDs via generated DTB. >> >> This patch updates generated DTB to have PSCI v0.2 function IDs when >> we have in-kernel emulation PSCI v0.2 for KVM ARM/ARM64. >> >> Signed-off-by: Pranavkumar Sawargaonkar <pranavku...@linaro.org> >> Signed-off-by: Anup Patel <anup.pa...@linaro.org> >> --- >> hw/arm/virt.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++----- >> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/hw/arm/virt.c b/hw/arm/virt.c >> index 517f2fe..a818a80 100644 >> --- a/hw/arm/virt.c >> +++ b/hw/arm/virt.c >> @@ -187,11 +187,26 @@ static void create_fdt(VirtBoardInfo *vbi) >> qemu_fdt_add_subnode(fdt, "/psci"); >> qemu_fdt_setprop_string(fdt, "/psci", "compatible", "arm,psci"); > > was there a decision on the format of the psci 0.2 bindings? > > I seem to recall that we should add arm,psci-0.2 or something like that.
Yes there was a discussion related to that by Mark Rutland and Rob Herring : http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg298509.html But there is no dt binding added related to psci 0.2 in kernel (I am not sure about final conclusion of the dt binding to be added). If the dt binding gets finalized I will definitely revise this patch. For now I have added old binding only to test the rfc patch (may now be the right way to do but do not have any option also). > > -Christoffer Thanks, Pranav