Hi Rob,
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Catalin Marinas
> wrote:
>
>> But I'm definitely going to discourage companies like Qualcomm
>> deliberately ignoring the existing booting protocols while trying to get
>> their code upstream. This pat
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 01:17:32PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Catalin Marinas
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:01:17AM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
> >> There are folks who are working to get saner, more-upstream kernels
> >> working on devices.. and improving ke
On Thu, Apr 16, 2015 at 11:21 AM, Catalin Marinas
wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:01:17AM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Catalin Marinas
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 05:48:48PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
>> >> Just speaking as an outsider to this topic, but
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:01:17AM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Catalin Marinas
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 05:48:48PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
> >> Just speaking as an outsider to this topic, but seems like most/all
> >> tablets/phones/etc ship with signed fi
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 05:17:59PM +0100, Lina Iyer wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14 2015 at 16:32 -0600, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 03:21:17PM +0100, Kumar Gala wrote:
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >> > Looking beyond this set of patches, I can foresee that you won't care
> >> > about the gen
On Tue, Apr 14 2015 at 16:32 -0600, Lorenzo Pieralisi wrote:
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 03:21:17PM +0100, Kumar Gala wrote:
[...]
> Looking beyond this set of patches, I can foresee that you won't care
> about the generic arm64 cpuidle driver either, or more precisely the
> separation between cpu
On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 9:34 AM, Catalin Marinas
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 05:48:48PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
>> Just speaking as an outsider to this topic, but seems like most/all
>> tablets/phones/etc ship with signed firmware. Which means for most of
>> the population, upgrading the fir
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 09:21:17AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> On Apr 13, 2015, at 4:41 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 02:06:33PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> >> On Apr 10, 2015, at 11:10 AM, Catalin Marinas
> >> wrote:
> >> Qualcomm choose for whatever reasons to not implem
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 05:48:48PM -0400, Rob Clark wrote:
> Just speaking as an outsider to this topic, but seems like most/all
> tablets/phones/etc ship with signed firmware. Which means for most of
> the population, upgrading the firmware to a new version which did
> support the standard (assum
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 03:21:17PM +0100, Kumar Gala wrote:
[...]
> > Looking beyond this set of patches, I can foresee that you won't care
> > about the generic arm64 cpuidle driver either, or more precisely the
> > separation between cpuidle subsystem+driver and the SoC-specific
> > back-end (c
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 5:17 PM, Catalin Marinas
wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 02:49:04PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>> On Apr 14, 2015, at 11:36 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> > On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 11:05:29AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 12:37:06PM -0500, Kumar Ga
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 02:49:04PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> On Apr 14, 2015, at 11:36 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 11:05:29AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >> On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 12:37:06PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> >>> This patch set adds support for SMP boot on th
> On Apr 14, 2015, at 11:36 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 11:05:29AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 12:37:06PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>> This patch set adds support for SMP boot on the MSM8x16 family of Qualcomm
>>> SoCs.
>>>
>>> To support SM
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 11:05:29AM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 12:37:06PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> > This patch set adds support for SMP boot on the MSM8x16 family of Qualcomm
> > SoCs.
> >
> > To support SMP on the MSM8x16 SoCs we need to add ARMv8/64-bit SCM
> > i
On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 03:44:11PM +0100, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> > On Apr 14, 2015, at 9:21 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:
> >
>
> So please come up with proper technical arguments rather than the kernel
> should take whatever SoC vendors dreamt of.
> >>>
> >>> There is no technical argum
> On Apr 14, 2015, at 9:21 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
So please come up with proper technical arguments rather than the kernel
should take whatever SoC vendors dreamt of.
>>>
>>> There is no technical argument to be made. This is about the
>>> community and you as maintainer wanti
> On Apr 13, 2015, at 4:41 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 02:06:33PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>> On Apr 10, 2015, at 11:10 AM, Catalin Marinas
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 10:24:46AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
On Apr 10, 2015, at 5:05 AM, Catalin Marinas
>
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 02:06:33PM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> On Apr 10, 2015, at 11:10 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 10:24:46AM -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
> >> On Apr 10, 2015, at 5:05 AM, Catalin Marinas
> >> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 12:37:06PM -0500, Kumar G
This patch set adds support for SMP boot on the MSM8x16 family of Qualcomm SoCs.
To support SMP on the MSM8x16 SoCs we need to add ARMv8/64-bit SCM interfaces to
setup the boot/release addresses for the secondary CPUs. In addition we need
a uniquie set of cpu ops. I'm aware the desired methods f
This patch set adds support for SMP boot on the MSM8x16 family of Qualcomm SoCs.
To support SMP on the MSM8x16 SoCs we need to add ARMv8/64-bit SCM interfaces to
setup the boot/release addresses for the secondary CPUs. In addition we need
a uniquie set of cpu ops. I'm aware the desired methods f
20 matches
Mail list logo
