Hi Atish Atish Patra <ati...@atishpatra.org> 於 2020年6月3日 週三 上午2:32寫道: > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 2:09 AM Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Rick, > > > > On Mon, Jun 1, 2020 at 5:08 PM Rick Chen <rickche...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Bin > > > > > > > > From: Bin Meng [mailto:bmeng...@gmail.com] > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2020 5:05 PM > > > > > To: Rick Jian-Zhi Chen(陳建志); U-Boot Mailing List > > > > > Cc: Atish Patra; Bin Meng > > > > > Subject: [PATCH 2/2] riscv: sbi: Move sbi_probe_extension() out of > > > > > CONFIG_SBI_V01 > > > > > > > > > > From: Bin Meng <bin.m...@windriver.com> > > > > > > > > > > sbi_probe_extension() is an API defined in SBI v0.2, not v0.1. > > > > > > > > > > Fixes 7e249bc13aaf: ("riscv: Move all SMP related SBI calls to > > > > > SBI_v01") > > > > > Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bin.m...@windriver.com> > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Rick Chen <r...@andestech.com> > > > > > > > > > > BTW, it seem look like sbi_remote_fence_i, sbi_remote_sfence_vma and > > > sbi_remote_sfence_vma_asid > > > are all can be used no mater in SBI_V01 or SBI_V02. Because you have > > > distinguished them in sbi.h > > > > No these calls are different and not compatible between SBI_V01 and SBI_V02. > > > > In addition to that, U-Boot proper enables SMP only for SBI_V01 > because U-Boot doesn't need > boot all the cores if the supervisor OS & SBI provider supports SBI > v0.2 with HSM. > > Starting with OpenSBI v0.7 & Linux kernel 5.7 supports both. Thus, > there is no advantage in adding > redundant code in a generic path that is never going to be used. > > Any SBI provider that only supports SBI v0.1, the user can fall back > to SBI_V01 config.
Thanks for your explanation. Regards, Rick > > See commit 7e249bc13aaf: ("riscv: Move all SMP related SBI calls to > > SBI_v01") > > > > Regards, > > Bin > > > > -- > Regards, > Atish