On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 10:04:25AM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote: > On Tue, Apr 14, 2015 at 11:52:39PM +0100, Al Stone wrote: > > On 04/14/2015 10:29 AM, Mark Rutland wrote: > > >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt > > >> index 8b9e0a9..35cabe5 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. > > >> be one of: > > >> "psci" > > >> "spin-table" > > > > > > In the case of these two, there's documentation on what the OS, FW, and > > > HW are expected to do. There's a PSCI spec, and spin-table is documented > > > in booting.txt (which is admittedly not fantastic). > > > [snip...] > > > > Perhaps a side topic, but I thought spin-table was being actively discouraged > > for arm64. Forgive me if I missed the memo, but is that not correct? > > We prefer that people implement PSCI, and if they must use spin-table, > each CPU has its own release address. > > However, we don't want implementation-specific mechanisms, and > spin-table is preferable to these. An important aspect is that with spin-table you don't get CPU off or suspend and some kernel functionality will be missing (kexec being one of them). -- Catalin -- 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
