Re: [RFC PATCH 5/5] arm64: qcom: add cpu operations

From: Al Stone
Date: Wed Apr 15 2015 - 12:30:37 EST

On 04/15/2015 08:53 AM, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> 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).

Thanks for the clarifications. I misunderstood; I knew PSCI was
preferred but somehow had it in my head that spin-table was just
a non-starter.

Al Stone
Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at