[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] arm64: dts: foundation-v8: Enable PSCI mode
On 20/09/17 10:42, Sudeep Holla wrote:
> On 19/09/17 19:32, Daniel Thompson wrote:
>> Currently if the Foundation model is running ARM Trusted Firmware then
>> the kernel, which is configured to use spin tables, cannot start secondary
>> processors or "power off" the simulation.
>> After adding a couple of labels to the include file and splitting out the
>> spin-table configuration into a header, we add a couple of new headers
>> together with two new DTs (GICv2+PSCI and GICv3+PSCI).
>> The new GICv3+PSCI DT has been boot tested, the remaining three (two of
>> which existed prior to this patch) have been "tested" by decompiling the
>> blobs and comparing them against a reference.
> How different are these from the ones hosted in [1] ?

They look like they were either independently written or diverged a long
time ago. The existing kernel DTs describe hardware absent from the ARM
TF ones and vice versa.

With specific reference to PSCI it looks like my patches could perhaps
be improved by adding idle-state support.

> On argument is that we want to take the DTS out of device tree as
> firmware is responsible for generating them. Alternatively, we may be
> duplicating resulting in discrepancies over time by coping it into kernel.

The general problem is copying from where?

The kernel DTs are a well maintained centralized repository which is
*really* useful. git grep across the kernel DTs is a hugely powerful
tool when trying to better understand an ecosystem as sprawling and
diverse as ARMs. In fact I've even seen those sort of searchs used as a
basis to clean up unused code. Seeing that centralized repository
splinter into separate per-vendor silos would be a huge loss for kernel

> Since users of ARM TF must be able to access these, I am not sure if it
> makes sense to merge these. Or we remove it from ARM TF to avoid any
> conflicts/discrepancies. >
> Thoughts ?

I kind of agree that maintaining DTs and DT documentation in the kernel
is a little odd given that the kernel is not the only player here
(FreeBSD, u-boot, etc). However it is sufficiently well maintained that
projects are content(ish) to regard the kernel as the canonical source
for these things (u-boot, for example, seeks to shadow kernel DTs
without modifying them).

However regardless of the above I'd say they should be removed from ARM
TF. ARM TF does not use, modify, pass on or in any way consume DT... it
has no skin in the game here. Why does it want to own a few of blobs for
a small subset of the platforms it supports? I'm afraid that makes no
sense to me, to the extent that it didn't even occur to me to *look* in
the ARM TF sources to find any DTs for FVP until you pointed them out.

In other words, whilst people could discuss alternative ways to manage
DTs[1], I can't see any universe where ARM TF would be a logical place
to keep them.


[1] ... and I'd further suggest that only perhaps people who are
prepared to put resources into fixing it should convene such a

 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-20 13:18    [W:0.075 / U:0.596 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site