On Thu, Apr 03, 2014 at 09:08:15AM +0100, Antoine Ténart wrote: > Signed-off-by: Antoine Ténart <antoine.tenart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt > index 333f4aea3029..a9e42a2dbc99 100644 > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt > @@ -185,6 +185,8 @@ nodes to be present and contain the properties described below. > "qcom,gcc-msm8660" > "qcom,kpss-acc-v1" > "qcom,kpss-acc-v2" > + "marvell,88de31-smp" - cpu-core handling for Berlin > + SoC from Marvell starting with 88de31 It would probably be best to add an enable-method directory and document what each of these mean (what's expected of the platform, what steps an OS should make to bring up and/or tear down CPUs). While it's nice to factor this out of the kernel, I'd like this to be better-defined such that it's clear what the expectations of each enable-method are. That ways it iss possible for OSs other than Linux to make use of the enable-method information (as it won't be an opaque reference to Linux internals), and we can have a clear definition of each enable-method independent of any implementation details. Going forward I would like to see fewer implementation-specific protocols for bringing up secondaries, and a move to fewer more standardised mechanisms like PSCI. I realise that might not be possible in all cases, but it would be nice to avoid a proliferation of enable-methods with single users. Cheers, Mark. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
