Re: [PATCH v3] [RFC] arm: use PSCI if available

[Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>]

On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 03:39:42PM +0000, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, Rob Herring wrote:
> > 
> > > On 03/28/2013 09:51 AM, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 28 Mar 2013, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > > 
> > > >> - the interface to bring up secondary cpus is different and based on
> > > >> PSCI, in fact Xen is going to add a PSCI node to the device tree so that
> > > >> Dom0 can use it.
> > > >>
> > > >> Oh wait, Dom0 is not going to use the PSCI interface even if the node is
> > > >> present on device tree because it's going to prefer the platform smp_ops
> > > >> instead.
> > > > 
> > > > Waitaminute...  I must have missed this part.
> > > > 
> > > > Who said platform specific methods must be used in preference to PSCI?
> > > 
> > > I did. Specifically, I said the platform should be allowed to provide
> > > its own smp_ops. A platform may need to do addtional things on top of
> > > PSCI for example.
> > 
> > Then the platform should have its special hook that would override the 
> > default PSCI methods.  But, by *default* the PSCI methods should be used 
> > if the related DT information is present.
> 
> I'm fine with a default PSCI-based implementation, providing that it's actually
> a layer between the smp ops and the psci code, not just glueing pointers
> together.

OK. I'll rename virt_smp_ops and move it to its own file rather than
psci.c and we'll take it from there.


> KVM and Xen can then use the default implementation, but it does mean that
> they have to agree on that interface as it expands in the future. If Xen
> relies on the default ops in order to boot, then that's a good incentive not
> to deviate from them on the firmware side.

I am OK with that.