From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: hanjun.guo@linaro.org (Hanjun Guo)
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 13:11:59 +0800
Subject: [PATCH v3 09/17] ARM64 / ACPI: Parse MADT for SMP initialization
In-Reply-To: <540E8212.8090304@redhat.com>
References: <1409583475-6978-1-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
 <1409583475-6978-10-git-send-email-hanjun.guo@linaro.org>
 <20140903172138.GG1824@e102568-lin.cambridge.arm.com>
 <5408854B.9010703@linaro.org> <540E8212.8090304@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <540E8C1F.5060802@linaro.org>
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org

On 2014?09?09? 12:29, Jon Masters wrote:
> Hi Hanjun, Lorenzo,

Hi Jon,

>
> Resending due to my mail client removing list CCs...sorry about that.
>
> On 09/04/2014 11:29 AM, Hanjun Guo wrote:
>
>>>> +	} else {
>>>> +		/* Fist GICC entry must be BSP as ACPI spec said */
>>> s/Fist/First/
>>>
>>>> +		if  (cpu_logical_map(0) != mpidr) {
>>>> +			pr_err("First GICC entry is not BSP for MPIDR 0x%llx\n",
>>>> +			       mpidr);
>>>> +			return -EINVAL;
>>>> +		}
>>> Interesting, this means that if I want to change the boot CPU I have to
>>> recompile the ACPI tables. Is that really true ?
> Well, the ACPI5.1 specification does require that the PEs (cores) be
> listed in a very specific order, with the boot CPU first, and then a
> precisely defined sequence of interleaving of any possible SMT threads
> with other cores. So I think you would in practice update your tables.

Thanks for the clarify.

>
>>>> +	/*
>>>> +	 * ACPI 5.1 only has two explicit methods to boot up SMP,
>>>> +	 * PSCI and Parking protocol, but the Parking protocol is
>>>> +	 * only specified for ARMv7 now, so make PSCI as the only
>>>> +	 * way for the SMP boot protocol before some updates for
>>>> +	 * the ACPI spec or the Parking protocol spec.
>>>> +	 */
> The Parking Protocol may be updated for a (limited) number of platforms
> that may use it in the early days. The preferred option (as described in
> the SBBR) is to use PSCI when at all possible. Some implementations of
> the architecture may not be able to use PSCI for MP-Boot. Thus while
> there may be some limited early use of the parking protocol (including
> while PSCI firmware is being finalized during bringup activities), it
> will ultimately be completely replaced by PSCI based boot over time.

Thank you for the clarify again :)

Will Parking Protocol be upstreamed? If yes, I think we can update the
comments when Parking Protocol driver upstreamed.

Thanks
Hanjun