On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 06:53:53AM +0000, Pranavkumar Sawargaonkar wrote: > Hi Christoffer, > > On 14 March 2014 09:19, Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 27, 2014 at 12:21:07PM +0530, Pranavkumar Sawargaonkar wrote: > >> If we have in-kernel emulation of PSCI v0.2 for KVM ARM/ARM64 then > >> we enable PSCI v0.2 for each VCPU at the time of VCPU init hence we > >> need to provide PSCI v0.2 function IDs via generated DTB. > >> > >> This patch updates generated DTB to have PSCI v0.2 function IDs when > >> we have in-kernel emulation PSCI v0.2 for KVM ARM/ARM64. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Pranavkumar Sawargaonkar <pranavkumar@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> Signed-off-by: Anup Patel <anup.patel@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> hw/arm/virt.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++----- > >> 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/hw/arm/virt.c b/hw/arm/virt.c > >> index 517f2fe..a818a80 100644 > >> --- a/hw/arm/virt.c > >> +++ b/hw/arm/virt.c > >> @@ -187,11 +187,26 @@ static void create_fdt(VirtBoardInfo *vbi) > >> qemu_fdt_add_subnode(fdt, "/psci"); > >> qemu_fdt_setprop_string(fdt, "/psci", "compatible", "arm,psci"); > > > > was there a decision on the format of the psci 0.2 bindings? > > > > I seem to recall that we should add arm,psci-0.2 or something like that. > > Yes there was a discussion related to that by Mark Rutland and Rob Herring : > http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg298509.html > > But there is no dt binding added related to psci 0.2 in kernel (I am > not sure about final conclusion of the dt binding to be added). If the > dt binding gets finalized I will definitely revise this patch. > For now I have added old binding only to test the rfc patch (may now > be the right way to do but do not have any option also). I believe Rob and I were happy with PSCI 0.2 IDs being implicit, though for compatibility with existing kernels the IDs in the "arm,psci" binding might also be listed. The only issue was Calxeda highbank/midway systems using pre-release PSCI 0.2 IDs for functions not in the "arm,psci" binding. For those we could allocate a compatilbe string like "calxeda,highbank-psci-0.2" and allow them to be implicit, or just leave them in their current (unsupported) state. Rob, thoughts? Thanks, Mark. _______________________________________________ Kvmarm mailing list Kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm
