Thanks Tom. I am sending out an updated v2 soon, with the related configs updated.
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 9:30 PM, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 03:16:38PM +0800, Hongbo Zhang wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Tom Rini <tr...@konsulko.com> wrote: >> > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 05:29:00PM +0800, macro.wav...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> From: Hongbo Zhang <hongbo.zh...@nxp.com> >> >> >> >> This patch set introduces ARMv8 PSCI framework, all the PSCI functions are >> >> implemented a default dummy one, it is up to each platform to implement >> >> their >> >> own specific ones. >> >> >> >> The first 1/6 patch is a prepare clean up for adding ARMv8 PSCI. >> >> Patches 2/6 to 5/6 introduce new ARMv8 framework and set it up. >> >> The last 6/6 adds a most simple implementation on NXP LS1043 platform, to >> >> verify this framework. >> >> >> >> This patch set mainly introduces ARMv8 PSCI framework, for easier review >> >> and >> >> merge, further PSCI implementation on LS1043 is coming later. >> >> >> >> Hongbo Zhang (6): >> >> ARMv8: LS1043A: change macro CONFIG_ARMV8_PSCI definition >> >> ARMv8: Add secure sections for PSCI text and data >> >> ARMv8: Add basic PSCI framework >> >> ARMv8: Setup PSCI memory and dt >> >> ARMv8: Enable SMC instruction >> >> ARMv8: LS1043A: Enable LS1043A default PSCI support >> > >> > Conceptually this is good. I have some issues around order of the >> > patches, and where the Kconfig entries end up. Looking over the series >> > we introduce usage of some CONFIG symbols prior to declaring them in >> > Kconfig. This is more of a hard no now as it will break bisecting when >> > the test for no new CONFIG symbols is tripped. The other problem is >> > that I think the symbols you're adding in >> > board/freescale/ls1043ardb/Kconfig need to be in >> > arch/arm/cpu/armv8/Kconfig and then use default ... if ... to give the >> > right address for the layerscape boards. >> >> Thanks Tom for quick response. >> >> For config options introduced: >> CONFIG_ARMV8_PSCI >> CONFIG_ARMV8_PSCI_NR_CPUS >> CONFIG_CPU_PER_CLUSTER >> CONFIG_ARMV8_SECURE_BASE >> >> I've tested adding patch one by one, there is no problem with the >> check-config script. > > OK. > >> And my idea was like this: let the CONFIG_ARMV8_PSCI to be an overall >> switch, and if it is enabled even without the other three ones, the >> default PSCI still works, as I've tested, this really works because >> any of the other three macros, when used, there is a #ifdef to check >> if it exists, if no, a default value is used or it isn't used at all. >> The later three macros, because they are platform specific so I >> intended to let every platform to define them. >> >> This is slightly different from ARMv7, plan was if this get accepted, >> I would like to send patch to update ARMv7's. > > I think that at the end of the day we need to have less options be > defined and asked under board/ and make more and in some cases better > use of the common Kconfig files. Looking at how things are done in the > Linux Kernel, in general, can be instructive here. Maybe the right > answer here is to have CONFIG_ARCH_WANT_GENERIC_PSCI_... with default y > (if most cases would be the generic one) and in the negative use the > other option which is board specific values. > > But re-reading patch 6/6, I'm still not convinced that we shouldn't > start out with these being all in arch/arm/cpu/armv8/Kconfig, under the > PSCI option, for everyone, and default ... if layerscape. And that > reminds that I wonder if we shouldn't have some higher level option to > say "I am ARMv8 Layerscape" to cover the cases where today we test vs a > number of TARGET_LS.... choices. Thanks! > > -- > Tom _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot