Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
From:   Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Date:   Thu, 13 Sep 2018 10:23:35 +0900
Message-ID: <CAK7LNASWfncdHRkRs=tq=TRaM+KUbb8bcMHMs8LiCgZzuFKCAg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [Question] vendor-specific cpu enable-method
To:     linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>
Cc:     Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hello.


Sorry if I am asking a stupid question.


For arm64, there are only 2 cpu methods, psci and spin-table.

Why do we still allow vendor-specific methods upstreamed
for arm 32bit ports?

To me, it looks like SoC vendors continue inventing
different (but similar) ways to do the same thing.

It is a historical reason for old platforms.

However, if I look at Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt
enable-method properties are still increasing.


psci is available in arch/arm/kernel/psci_smp.c,
but not all SoCs support the security extension.
Is there a simpler one like spin-table available for arm32?

If we force generic methods like psci or spin-table
for new platforms, we can stop proliferated smp code.
(Of course, we are just shifting the complexity
from the kernel to firmware.)

Am I missing something?


-- 
Best Regards
Masahiro Yamada