Hi, Mark

On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 9:38 PM, Mark Rutland [off-list ref] wrote:

On Fri, Dec 05, 2014 at 12:27:23PM +0000, Lyra Zhang wrote:

quoted

On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 6:40 PM, Mark Rutland [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

Hi,

On Thu, Dec 04, 2014 at 11:34:15AM +0000, Chunyan Zhang wrote:

quoted

Spreadtrum is a rapid growing chip vendor providing smart phone total solutions.

Sharkl64 Platform is nominated as a SoC infrastructure that supports 4G/3G/2G
standards based on ARMv8 multiple core architecture.Now we have only one
SoC(SC9836) based on this Platform in developing.

This patchset adds Sharkl64 support in arm64 device tree and the serial driver
of SC9836-UART.

This patchset also has patches which address "sprd" prefix and DT compatible
strings for nodes which appear un-documented.

This version code was tesed both on Fast Mode and sc9836-fpga board.
We use the latest boot-wrapper-aarch64 as the bootloader.

Changes from v3:
* Addressed review comments:
      - Added the description of clock property for sc9836-uart
      - Revised the size of GICC to be 8KiB
      - Added another compatible string for psci-0.1

I had open questions on v3 regarding your PSCI imlpementation. You
mentioned that you are using the aarch64 bootwrapper, but your DT
describes PSCI 0.2, and the (upstream) bootwrapper does not implement
PSCI 0.2. Adding the old PSCI compatible string is _not_ sufficient if
you do not have a full PSCI 0.2 implementation.

Given that PSCI 0.2 requires more functionality to be implemented, I'd
like to know that your implementation is spec-compliant (implementing
the mandatory functions, nters the kernel in the correct state, etc),
and that it has been tested.

Would you be able to look at my comments from the last posting please?

Thanks,
Mark.
--

Hi, Mark

Ok, I'll check it again with our related engineers.

Actually, I had read all of your comments carefully before sending
each version of patches, and I replied you a few days early, I guess
you may miss it :)

If we just implemented psci-0.1 until now, can we submit this path
without "compatible = "arm,psci-0.2"", but only with " compatible =
"arm,psci" ".

Elsewhere I've recommended such things are placed in the DTB by the
bootloader (at least for those cases where the bootlaoder is tied to the
firmware), as it can fill in the appropriate enable-method (and add any
other nodes as required).

Having compatible = "arm,psci", and a couple of other properties for now
is certainly preferable to describing a not-yet-implemented PSCI 0.2.

Thanks,
Mark.
--

Thank you for the replay.
I'll still ping my colleagues to implement PSCI 0.2, and test it.
But it perhaps would not be finished soon, because our internal
developing code right now is based on a little old version Linux
kernel which doesn't support  PSCI-0.2

Thanks again,
Chunyan