On 5 August 2014 09:32, Nicolas Pitre [off-list ref] wrote:

On Tue, 5 Aug 2014, Haojian Zhuang wrote:

quoted

On 5 August 2014 09:02, Nicolas Pitre [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 5 Aug 2014, Haojian Zhuang wrote:

quoted

On 5 August 2014 06:43, Nicolas Pitre [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Sorry for the delay -- I was on vacation.

On Mon, 4 Aug 2014, Haojian Zhuang wrote:

quoted

Multiple CPU clusters are used in Hisilicon HiP04 SoC. Now use MCPM
framework to manage power on HiP04 SoC.

Changelog:
v16:
  * Parse bootwrapper parameters in command line instead.

What is that about?  I don't particularly like to see bootloader
handshake details passed to the kernel via the kernel command line
mechanism.  Given this looks like special memory regions, can't they be
specified via the device tree instead?

Others don't agree put them into DTS file. So I move them into command line.

Could you give me a pointer to the discussion around that please?


Nicolas

http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2014-July/275944.html

Mark challenged what's relationship between bootwrapper address and
system controller.

There is no relation, obviously.  Hence this doesn't belong in the
system controller node.  That doesn't mean it should not be in DT at
all.

quoted

Actually code in bootwrapper is like trampoline. And it's a software
protocol, not hardware description. So I moved them into command line
instead.

There are many examples for software protocols being specified in DT
already.  The first that comes to my mind is the "boot method = spin
table" which has nothing to do with hardware.  PSCI bindings are about
another software-only thing.


Nicolas

bootwrapper {
        compatible = "hisilicon,hip04-bootwrapper";
        boot-method = <0x10c00000, 0x10000, 0xa5a5a5a5, 0xe0000100, 0x1000>;
};

I changed them into this format. Could you help to review?

Regards
Haojian