Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 15:29:48 +0000
From: Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>
To: Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@gmail.com>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>,
        Simon Horman <horms@verge.net.au>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Nicolas Pitre <nico@linaro.org>, Dave P Martin <Dave.Martin@arm.com>,
        SH-Linux <linux-sh@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ARM: smp: Only expose /sys/.../cpuX/online if
 hotpluggable
Message-ID: <20150216152948.GH8994@leverpostej>
References: <1423850799-4028-1-git-send-email-sboyd@codeaurora.org>
 <20150213202002.GB29727@verge.net.au>
 <54DE5D3A.5070104@codeaurora.org>
 <CANqRtoSOBf3ZCKdKYta-P2q==ZMHk=VZgfEztPJ+uaKQtkBWjg@mail.gmail.com>
 <54DE65C6.8000304@codeaurora.org>
 <CANqRtoQsKVNMWrj1LZdinHs_iZmsCwWxtqmMWv7SENS3-QXk1A@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150213230137.GH8656@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150213230137.GH8656@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk>
Thread-Topic: [PATCH v2] ARM: smp: Only expose /sys/.../cpuX/online if
 hotpluggable
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1518
Lines: 31

On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 11:01:37PM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 09:44:50PM +0000, Magnus Damm wrote:
> > Also, based on the comment in mcpm_cpu_can_disable() it looks like the
> > PSCI hook may be executed once only with your change in place?
> > Hopefully PSCI is OK not being invoked for every CPU shutdown.
> 
> This is why I've said (in the parent thread) that I'm not happy to
> apply this patch.  Mark Rutland has indicated that he has MCPM cases
> where the CPUs which can be disabled changes dynamically according
> to the secure firmware requirements, and ripping out todays
> infrastructure in light of that, only to have to add it back again
> later makes no sense.

To clarify, PSCI and MCPM are unrelated. It was originally conceived
that MCPM would use PSCI as a backend, but it turns out that they're
effectively mutually exclusive, and are handled separately. I still want
to add support for MIGRATE in the PSCI client code, but this is
independent of MCPM.

In some cases it's possible to determine at boot time that a CPU cannot
be hotplugged (e.g. in PSCI if the TOS is non-migrateable), so having
separate hooks for determining that static and dynamic ability to
hotplug a CPU sounds reasonable to me.

Thanks,
Mark.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/