Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751112Ab2FGEGh (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Jun 2012 00:06:37 -0400 Received: from db3ehsobe006.messaging.microsoft.com ([213.199.154.144]:14158 "EHLO db3outboundpool.messaging.microsoft.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750753Ab2FGEGf (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Jun 2012 00:06:35 -0400 X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:70.37.183.190;KIP:(null);UIP:(null);IPV:NLI;H:mail.freescale.net;RD:none;EFVD:NLI X-SpamScore: -11 X-BigFish: VS-11(zzbb2dI9371I1432N98dKzz1202hzzz2dh2a8h668h839h944hd25hf0ah) Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2012 12:07:01 +0800 From: Zhao Chenhui To: Scott Wood CC: , , , , Matthew McClintock Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/5] powerpc/85xx: implement hardware timebase sync Message-ID: <20120607040701.GA15965@localhost.localdomain> References: <1336737235-15370-1-git-send-email-chenhui.zhao@freescale.com> <4FC8E250.9090000@freescale.com> <20120605090831.GA21929@localhost.localdomain> <4FCE2ECD.4050107@freescale.com> <20120606093142.GA23505@localhost.localdomain> <4FCFA0C8.9090800@freescale.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4FCFA0C8.9090800@freescale.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-OriginatorOrg: freescale.net Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1951 Lines: 49 On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 01:26:16PM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > On 06/06/2012 04:31 AM, Zhao Chenhui wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 11:07:41AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > >> On 06/05/2012 04:08 AM, Zhao Chenhui wrote: > >>> On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 10:40:00AM -0500, Scott Wood wrote: > >>>> I know you say this is for dual-core chips only, but it would be nice if > >>>> you'd write this in a way that doesn't assume that (even if the > >>>> corenet-specific timebase freezing comes later). > >>> > >>> At this point, I have not thought about how to implement the cornet-specific timebase freezing. > >> > >> I wasn't asking you to. I was asking you to not have logic that breaks > >> with more than 2 CPUs. > > > > These routines only called in the dual-core case. > > Come on, you know we have chips with more than two cores. Why design > such a limitation into it, just because you're not personally interested > in supporting anything but e500v2? > > Is it so hard to make it work for an arbitrary number of cores? > > >>> If do not set them, it may make KEXEC fail on other platforms. > >> > >> What platforms? > > > > Such as P4080, P3041, etc. > > So we need to wait for corenet timebase sync before we stop causing > problems in virtualization, simulators, etc. if a kernel has kexec or > cpu hotplug enabled (whether used or not)? > > Can you at least make sure we're actually in a kexec/hotplug scenario at > runtime? > > Or just implement corenet timebase sync -- it's not that different. > > -Scott We also work on the corenet timebase sync. Our plan is first the dual-core case, then the case of more than 2 cores. We will submit the corenet timebase sync patch soon. -Chenhui -- 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/