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;
Date:   Thu, 13 Sep 2018 10:29:46 +0800
From:   Jisheng Zhang <Jisheng.Zhang@synaptics.com>
To:     Masahiro Yamada <yamada.masahiro@socionext.com>
Cc:     linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
        Olof Johansson <olof@lixom.net>,
        Rob Herring <robh+dt@kernel.org>,
        Russell King <linux@armlinux.org.uk>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Question] vendor-specific cpu enable-method
Message-ID: <20180913102946.41a43d88@xhacker.debian>
In-Reply-To: <CAK7LNASWfncdHRkRs=tq=TRaM+KUbb8bcMHMs8LiCgZzuFKCAg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK7LNASWfncdHRkRs=tq=TRaM+KUbb8bcMHMs8LiCgZzuFKCAg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Received-SPF: None (protection.outlook.com: synaptics.com does not designate
 permitted sender hosts)
SpamDiagnosticOutput: 1:99
SpamDiagnosticMetadata: NSPM
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Sep 2018 02:33:12.7120 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: a0a6d37e-c811-4e0b-f205-08d619214195
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 335d1fbc-2124-4173-9863-17e7051a2a0e
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BY2PR0301MB1575
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 10:23:35 +0900 Masahiro Yamada wrote:

> 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?

Per my understanding, spin-table is similar as the "pen" based
solution in arm32, both can't reliably support kexec, suspend etc...

> 
> 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.)

psci is good but not all SoCs support secure extensions. spin-table
can't support kexec, suspend. Except prefer psci for news SoCs
with secure extensions, no better solutions AFAIK.