Messages in this thread | | | From | Arnd Bergmann <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 6/6] [RFC] arm: use PSCI if available | Date | Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:46:49 +0000 |
| |
On Tuesday 26 March 2013, Will Deacon wrote: > > They can even base the implementation of their smp_ops on the current > > psci code, in order to facilitate that I could get rid of psci_ops > > (which initialization is based on device tree) and export the psci_cpu_* > > functions instead, so that they can be called directly by other smp_ops. > > Again, I think this destroys the layering. The whole point is that the PSCI > functions are called from within something that understands precisely how to > talk to the firmware and what it is capable of.
Right, we probably the psci smp ops to be separate from the rest of the psci code, but I also think that Stefano is right that we should let any platform use the psci smp ops if possible, rather than having to implement their own.
> > > If this can indeed work for the virtual platforms (Xen and KVM), then I > > > think it would be better expressed using `virt' smp_ops, which map directly > > > to PSCI, rather than putting them here. Even then, it's tying KVM and Xen > > > together on the firmware side of things... > > > > Keep in mind that dom0 on Xen boots as a native machine (versatile > > express or exynos5 for example) with a Xen hypervisor node on it. We > > would need to find a way to override the default machine smp_ops with > > a set of xen_smp_ops early at boot. > > I don't like this option very much, I think is fragile. > > Why can't dom0 use whatever smp ops the native machine would use?
The part that I'm most interested in is making it possible for a platform to kill off its native smp ops in the kernel by implementing the psci ops. I think it's a good strategy to use psci by default if both platform and psci implementations are available.
Arnd
| |