lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Apr]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v8 1/2] arm: introduce psci_smp_ops
On Thu, 25 Apr 2013, Will Deacon wrote:
> > +/*
> > + * cpu_suspend Suspend the execution on a CPU
> > + * @state we don't currently describe affinity levels, so just pass 0.
> > + * @entry_point the first instruction to be executed on return
> > + * returns 0 success, < 0 on failure
> > + *
> > + * cpu_off Power down a CPU
> > + * @state we don't currently describe affinity levels, so just pass 0.
> > + * no return on successful call
> > + *
> > + * cpu_on Power up a CPU
> > + * @cpuid cpuid of target CPU, as from MPIDR
> > + * @entry_point the first instruction to be executed on return
> > + * returns 0 success, < 0 on failure
> > + *
> > + * migrate Migrate the context to a different CPU
> > + * @cpuid cpuid of target CPU, as from MPIDR
> > + * returns 0 success, < 0 on failure
> > + *
> > + */
>
> Can you move these comments into psci-smp.c please? They're really specific
> to the implementation there, and if we put them in a header we're lying to
> ourselves about the parameters actually described by the PSCI specification.

You have a good point about the PSCI spec.

However from the Linux POV these comments should regard the functions
exported by psci_operations, not the firmware interface, this is why I
think it makes sense to keep them in psci.h.
What we are saying is for example that psci_operations.cpu_on returns 0
on success and < 0 on failure, and it takes a cpuid and an entry point
as parameters. We are not saying anything about the firmware interface.

Maybe I should add at the top:

"psci_operations functions and parameters, might different from the
firmware interface:"


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-04-25 13:21    [W:0.080 / U:0.708 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site