On 09/16/2014 06:42 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 11:51:14PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote:
>> Hi Sonny,
>>
>> On 09/15/2014 06:04 PM, Sonny Rao wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Sonny Rao wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 09:33:03PM +0100, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 09/15/14 04:10, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 07:59:29PM +0100, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >> On 09/12/14 05:14, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >>> We surely can handle the UNDEF and do something there. We just can't do
>
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 11:51:14PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote:
> Hi Sonny,
>
> On 09/15/2014 06:04 PM, Sonny Rao wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Sonny Rao wrote:
> >> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >>> On 09/15/14 14:47, Sonny Rao wrote:
> On
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 11:51:14PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote:
Hi Sonny,
On 09/15/2014 06:04 PM, Sonny Rao wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Sonny Rao sonny...@chromium.org wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Stephen Boyd sb...@codeaurora.org wrote:
On 09/15/14 14:47,
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 09:33:03PM +0100, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 09/15/14 04:10, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 07:59:29PM +0100, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 09/12/14 05:14, Marc Zyngier wrote:
We surely can handle the UNDEF and do something there. We just can't do
it the way
On 09/16/2014 06:42 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 11:51:14PM +0100, Christopher Covington wrote:
Hi Sonny,
On 09/15/2014 06:04 PM, Sonny Rao wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Sonny Rao sonny...@chromium.org wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Stephen Boyd
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Christopher Covington
wrote:
> Hi Sonny,
>
> On 09/15/2014 06:04 PM, Sonny Rao wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Sonny Rao wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 09/15/14 14:47, Sonny Rao wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15,
Hi Sonny,
On 09/15/2014 06:04 PM, Sonny Rao wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Sonny Rao wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>> On 09/15/14 14:47, Sonny Rao wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 09/15/14 04:10, Catalin
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Sonny Rao wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> On 09/15/14 14:47, Sonny Rao wrote:
>>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 09/15/14 04:10, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 07:59:29PM +0100,
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 09/15/14 14:47, Sonny Rao wrote:
>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>> On 09/15/14 04:10, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 07:59:29PM +0100, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 09/12/14 05:14, Marc
On 09/15/14 14:47, Sonny Rao wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> On 09/15/14 04:10, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 07:59:29PM +0100, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 09/12/14 05:14, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> We surely can handle the UNDEF and do
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>
> On 09/15/14 04:10, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 07:59:29PM +0100, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> >> On 09/12/14 05:14, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >>> We surely can handle the UNDEF and do something there. We just can't do
> >>> it
On 09/15/14 04:10, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 07:59:29PM +0100, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> On 09/12/14 05:14, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> We surely can handle the UNDEF and do something there. We just can't do
>>> it the way Doug described it above.
>> I suggested doing that for
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 07:59:29PM +0100, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 09/12/14 05:14, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> > On 12/09/14 12:43, Christopher Covington wrote:
> >> On 09/11/2014 01:43 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> >>> On 11/09/14 18:29, Doug Anderson wrote:
> >>>
> I did this in the past (again, see
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 07:59:29PM +0100, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 09/12/14 05:14, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On 12/09/14 12:43, Christopher Covington wrote:
On 09/11/2014 01:43 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On 11/09/14 18:29, Doug Anderson wrote:
I did this in the past (again, see Sonny's thread),
On 09/15/14 04:10, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 07:59:29PM +0100, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 09/12/14 05:14, Marc Zyngier wrote:
We surely can handle the UNDEF and do something there. We just can't do
it the way Doug described it above.
I suggested doing that for something else
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Stephen Boyd sb...@codeaurora.org wrote:
On 09/15/14 04:10, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 07:59:29PM +0100, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 09/12/14 05:14, Marc Zyngier wrote:
We surely can handle the UNDEF and do something there. We just can't do
On 09/15/14 14:47, Sonny Rao wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Stephen Boyd sb...@codeaurora.org wrote:
On 09/15/14 04:10, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 07:59:29PM +0100, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On 09/12/14 05:14, Marc Zyngier wrote:
We surely can handle the UNDEF and do
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Stephen Boyd sb...@codeaurora.org wrote:
On 09/15/14 14:47, Sonny Rao wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Stephen Boyd sb...@codeaurora.org wrote:
On 09/15/14 04:10, Catalin Marinas wrote:
On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 07:59:29PM +0100, Stephen Boyd wrote:
On
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Sonny Rao sonny...@chromium.org wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Stephen Boyd sb...@codeaurora.org wrote:
On 09/15/14 14:47, Sonny Rao wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Stephen Boyd sb...@codeaurora.org wrote:
On 09/15/14 04:10, Catalin Marinas
Hi Sonny,
On 09/15/2014 06:04 PM, Sonny Rao wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Sonny Rao sonny...@chromium.org wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Stephen Boyd sb...@codeaurora.org wrote:
On 09/15/14 14:47, Sonny Rao wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 1:33 PM, Stephen Boyd
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 3:51 PM, Christopher Covington
c...@codeaurora.org wrote:
Hi Sonny,
On 09/15/2014 06:04 PM, Sonny Rao wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 2:52 PM, Sonny Rao sonny...@chromium.org wrote:
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 2:49 PM, Stephen Boyd sb...@codeaurora.org wrote:
On 09/15/14
On 09/12/14 05:14, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> Hi Christopher,
>
> On 12/09/14 12:43, Christopher Covington wrote:
>> Hi Marc,
>>
>> On 09/11/2014 01:43 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> On 11/09/14 18:29, Doug Anderson wrote:
>>>
I did this in the past (again, see Sonny's thread), but didn't
Hi Christopher,
On 12/09/14 12:43, Christopher Covington wrote:
> Hi Marc,
>
> On 09/11/2014 01:43 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 11/09/14 18:29, Doug Anderson wrote:
>>> Marc,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> We would need to run this code potentially at
Hi Marc,
On 09/11/2014 01:43 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 11/09/14 18:29, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> Marc,
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
We would need to run this code potentially at processor bringup and
after suspend/resume, but that seems possible too.
>>>
On 12/09/14 01:01, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Stephen,
>
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> On 09/11/14 10:43, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> If I was suicidal, I'd suggest you could pass a parameter to the command
> line, interpreted by the timer code... But I since I'm not,
On 12/09/14 01:01, Doug Anderson wrote:
Stephen,
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Stephen Boyd sb...@codeaurora.org wrote:
On 09/11/14 10:43, Marc Zyngier wrote:
If I was suicidal, I'd suggest you could pass a parameter to the command
line, interpreted by the timer code... But I since I'm
Hi Marc,
On 09/11/2014 01:43 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On 11/09/14 18:29, Doug Anderson wrote:
Marc,
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Marc Zyngier marc.zyng...@arm.com wrote:
We would need to run this code potentially at processor bringup and
after suspend/resume, but that seems possible
Hi Christopher,
On 12/09/14 12:43, Christopher Covington wrote:
Hi Marc,
On 09/11/2014 01:43 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On 11/09/14 18:29, Doug Anderson wrote:
Marc,
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Marc Zyngier marc.zyng...@arm.com wrote:
We would need to run this code potentially at
On 09/12/14 05:14, Marc Zyngier wrote:
Hi Christopher,
On 12/09/14 12:43, Christopher Covington wrote:
Hi Marc,
On 09/11/2014 01:43 PM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
On 11/09/14 18:29, Doug Anderson wrote:
I did this in the past (again, see Sonny's thread), but didn't
consider myself knowledgeable
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 09/11/14 17:14, Sonny Rao wrote:
>
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>>
>>
>> Where does this platform jump to when a CPU comes up? Is it
>> rockchip_secondary_startup()? I wonder if that path could have this
>>
Stephen,
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> On 09/11/14 10:43, Marc Zyngier wrote:
If I was suicidal, I'd suggest you could pass a parameter to the command
line, interpreted by the timer code... But I since I'm not, let's
pretend I haven't said anything... ;-)
On 09/11/14 10:43, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> If I was suicidal, I'd suggest you could pass a parameter to the command
>>> line, interpreted by the timer code... But I since I'm not, let's
>>> pretend I haven't said anything... ;-)
>> I did this in the past (again, see Sonny's thread), but didn't
>>
Marc,
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 11/09/14 18:29, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> Marc,
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
We would need to run this code potentially at processor bringup and
after suspend/resume, but that seems possible
On 11/09/14 18:29, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Marc,
>
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>> We would need to run this code potentially at processor bringup and
>>> after suspend/resume, but that seems possible too.
>>
>> Note that this would be an ARMv7 only thing (you can't do
Marc,
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> We would need to run this code potentially at processor bringup and
>> after suspend/resume, but that seems possible too.
>
> Note that this would be an ARMv7 only thing (you can't do that on ARMv8,
> at all).
Yes, of course.
>>
On 11/09/14 18:11, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 11/09/14 17:47, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 05:16:44PM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
Some 32-bit (ARMv7) systems are architected like this:
* The firmware
Will,
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 05:59:53PM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
>> > I'd say `Only supported for ARM' to better match what we've done. Probably
>> > also worth mentioning that this
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Marc Zyngier wrote:
> On 11/09/14 17:47, Will Deacon wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 05:16:44PM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
>>> Some 32-bit (ARMv7) systems are architected like this:
>>>
>>> * The firmware doesn't know and doesn't care about hypervisor
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 05:59:53PM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> > I'd say `Only supported for ARM' to better match what we've done. Probably
> > also worth mentioning that this relies on the hypervisor/firmware having set
> > CNTHCTL.PL1PCEN
On 11/09/14 17:47, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 05:16:44PM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> Some 32-bit (ARMv7) systems are architected like this:
>>
>> * The firmware doesn't know and doesn't care about hypervisor mode and
>> we don't want to add the complexity of hypervisor
Will,
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 05:16:44PM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
>> Some 32-bit (ARMv7) systems are architected like this:
>>
>> * The firmware doesn't know and doesn't care about hypervisor mode and
>> we don't want to add the
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 05:16:44PM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
> Some 32-bit (ARMv7) systems are architected like this:
>
> * The firmware doesn't know and doesn't care about hypervisor mode and
> we don't want to add the complexity of hypervisor there.
>
> * The firmware isn't involved in SMP
Some 32-bit (ARMv7) systems are architected like this:
* The firmware doesn't know and doesn't care about hypervisor mode and
we don't want to add the complexity of hypervisor there.
* The firmware isn't involved in SMP bringup or resume.
* The ARCH timer come up with an uninitialized offset
Marc,
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:43 AM, Marc Zyngier marc.zyng...@arm.com wrote:
On 11/09/14 18:29, Doug Anderson wrote:
Marc,
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Marc Zyngier marc.zyng...@arm.com wrote:
We would need to run this code potentially at processor bringup and
after suspend/resume,
On 09/11/14 10:43, Marc Zyngier wrote:
If I was suicidal, I'd suggest you could pass a parameter to the command
line, interpreted by the timer code... But I since I'm not, let's
pretend I haven't said anything... ;-)
I did this in the past (again, see Sonny's thread), but didn't
consider
Stephen,
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Stephen Boyd sb...@codeaurora.org wrote:
On 09/11/14 10:43, Marc Zyngier wrote:
If I was suicidal, I'd suggest you could pass a parameter to the command
line, interpreted by the timer code... But I since I'm not, let's
pretend I haven't said
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 6:17 PM, Stephen Boyd sb...@codeaurora.org wrote:
On 09/11/14 17:14, Sonny Rao wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Stephen Boyd sb...@codeaurora.org wrote:
Where does this platform jump to when a CPU comes up? Is it
rockchip_secondary_startup()? I wonder if that
Some 32-bit (ARMv7) systems are architected like this:
* The firmware doesn't know and doesn't care about hypervisor mode and
we don't want to add the complexity of hypervisor there.
* The firmware isn't involved in SMP bringup or resume.
* The ARCH timer come up with an uninitialized offset
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 05:16:44PM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
Some 32-bit (ARMv7) systems are architected like this:
* The firmware doesn't know and doesn't care about hypervisor mode and
we don't want to add the complexity of hypervisor there.
* The firmware isn't involved in SMP
Will,
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 05:16:44PM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
Some 32-bit (ARMv7) systems are architected like this:
* The firmware doesn't know and doesn't care about hypervisor mode and
we don't want to add
On 11/09/14 17:47, Will Deacon wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 05:16:44PM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
Some 32-bit (ARMv7) systems are architected like this:
* The firmware doesn't know and doesn't care about hypervisor mode and
we don't want to add the complexity of hypervisor there.
* The
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 05:59:53PM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote:
I'd say `Only supported for ARM' to better match what we've done. Probably
also worth mentioning that this relies on the hypervisor/firmware having set
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Marc Zyngier marc.zyng...@arm.com wrote:
On 11/09/14 17:47, Will Deacon wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 05:16:44PM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
Some 32-bit (ARMv7) systems are architected like this:
* The firmware doesn't know and doesn't care about
Will,
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:07 AM, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 05:59:53PM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Will Deacon will.dea...@arm.com wrote:
I'd say `Only supported for ARM' to better match what we've done. Probably
On 11/09/14 18:11, Doug Anderson wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:00 AM, Marc Zyngier marc.zyng...@arm.com wrote:
On 11/09/14 17:47, Will Deacon wrote:
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 05:16:44PM +0100, Doug Anderson wrote:
Some 32-bit (ARMv7) systems are architected like this:
* The firmware
Marc,
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Marc Zyngier marc.zyng...@arm.com wrote:
We would need to run this code potentially at processor bringup and
after suspend/resume, but that seems possible too.
Note that this would be an ARMv7 only thing (you can't do that on ARMv8,
at all).
Yes, of
On 11/09/14 18:29, Doug Anderson wrote:
Marc,
On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 10:22 AM, Marc Zyngier marc.zyng...@arm.com wrote:
We would need to run this code potentially at processor bringup and
after suspend/resume, but that seems possible too.
Note that this would be an ARMv7 only thing (you
58 matches
Mail list logo
