On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 09:35:08PM +0100, bhupesh.sharma at freescale.com wrote:

Ping?

Hi Bhupesh,

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Sharma Bhupesh-B45370
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 5:16 PM
To: 'Arnd Bergmann'; Mark Rutland
Cc: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org; rob.herring at linaro.org; Catalin
Marinas; Will Deacon; Yoder Stuart-B08248; grant.likely at secretlab.ca;
Marc Zyngier; Basu Arnab-B45036; Geoff Levand
Subject: RE: [PATCH V3 0/6] ARM64: Add support for FSL's LS2085A SoC

Hi Mark, Arnd

quoted

-----Original Message-----
From: Arnd Bergmann [mailto:arnd at arndb.de]
Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2014 3:09 PM
To: Mark Rutland
Cc: linux-arm-kernel at lists.infradead.org; rob.herring at linaro.org;
Sharma Bhupesh-B45370; Catalin Marinas; Will Deacon; Yoder
Stuart-B08248; grant.likely at secretlab.ca; Marc Zyngier; Basu
Arnab-B45036; Geoff Levand
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 0/6] ARM64: Add support for FSL's LS2085A SoC

On Thursday 04 September 2014 10:13:19 Mark Rutland wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 07:31:44PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

quoted

On Wednesday 03 September 2014 17:31:30 Mark Rutland wrote:

quoted

However, I'm not sure I follow the reasoning for making this
significantly harder, and even ignoring that I don't think this
does make things significantly harder. Especially so if we have
a PSCI node but not an enable method -- in that case its trivial
to patch in an unrelated enable-method anyhow.

Right, it's not actually much harder. A better way to look at it
is probably that we document what which parts we expect to stay
constant and which parts are to be filled out by the boot loader.
Independent of what PSCI implementation the boot loader provides,
we would like to see enable-method="psci".

So in the /cpus node, have a comment like:

/*
 * We expect the enable-method to be "psci", but this is dependent
on
 * the FW, which will fill this in.
 */

I was thinking of leaving the enable-method in the cpus node, but
having an empty psci node with a similar comment.

quoted

Or, should we put together a soc-guidance.txt with that, ensuring
things are initialised correctly (CNTVOFF, CNTFREQ), etc?

I would very much welcome documentation like that!

Is this documentation planned (already being worked upon), or should I
try to spin-out a RFC patch which tries to add this guidance
documentation.

If you'd be willing to put together an RFC, that would be welcomed. It
has so far been a TODO item that no-one has had the time for.

Mark.