On Mar 12, 2015, at 1:25 PM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> + cpus {
>>>> + #address-cells = <1>;
>>>> + #size-cells = <0>;
>>>> +
>>>> + CPU0: cpu@0 {
>>>> + device_type = "cpu";
>>>> + compatible = "arm,cortex-a53", "arm,armv8";
>>>> + reg = <0x0>;
>>>> + };
>>>> +
>>>> + CPU1: cpu@1 {
>>>> + device_type = "cpu";
>>>> + compatible = "arm,cortex-a53", "arm,armv8";
>>>> + reg = <0x1>;
>>>> + };
>>>> +
>>>> + CPU2: cpu@2 {
>>>> + device_type = "cpu";
>>>> + compatible = "arm,cortex-a53", "arm,armv8";
>>>> + reg = <0x2>;
>>>> + };
>>>> +
>>>> + CPU3: cpu@3 {
>>>> + device_type = "cpu";
>>>> + compatible = "arm,cortex-a53", "arm,armv8";
>>>> + reg = <0x3>;
>>>> + };
>>>> + };
>>>
>>> The secondary CPUs need an enable-method. Are you using PSCI or
>>> spin-table?
>>
>> This is on purpose. We aren’t using either PSCI or spin-table. Right
>> now the dts is for booting on a single core. I can drop CPU1..CPU3 if
>> that helps.
>
> We won't poke the CPUs without an enable-method, so personally I'm not
> too worried either way about having the CPUs listed.
That was my thinking, so left them in.
> Which of spin-table/psci are you planning on using for SMP support, and
> when would that be likely to appear?
We have a qcom specific SMP enablement method for this device. This was one of our first devices so it utilized as much from arm 32-bit as possible.
> Which exception level do CPUs enter the kernel? Even without a
> virt-capable GIC booting at EL2 is less work for the FW and gives the
> kernel a better chance of fixing things up (e.g. CNTVOFF).
I think the enter in EL1.
- k
--
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum,
a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project
--
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
