On 2014-11-10 14:29, bhupesh.sha...@freescale.com wrote: > Hi, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de [mailto:u-boot-boun...@lists.denx.de] >> On Behalf Of Jan Kiszka >> Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 6:56 PM >> To: Marc Zyngier >> Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de >> Subject: Re: [U-Boot] ARM: PSCI 0.1 vs 0.2 >> >> On 2014-11-10 14:08, Marc Zyngier wrote: >>> On 10/11/14 12:51, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>> Hi Marc, >>>> >>>> what is the motivation to expose a PSCI 0.1 interface in U-boot, >>>> instead of 0.2? Support for preexisting users of 0.1? The kernel >>>> seems to be happy with both, and I'm now wondering if we should >>>> actually add the legacy version to Jailhouse as well (I hope we can >> avoid this). >>> >>> The initial rational was simple: at the time this code was written, >>> the >>> 0.2 spec still in review, and nobody was implementing it. Supporting >>> 0.1 was the only viable use-case. >>> >>>> Still studying the logic: Is it possible to provide both interfaces, >>>> and would it make sense? >>> >>> Supporting both is very easy. Just output the 0.2 function numbers >>> that actually make sense for 0.1 and have both compatible strings. >> >> Ah, cool - parameters and return values of, say, CPU_ON/OFF are >> compatible across both versions? >> >> Jan >> >> -- > > We did send out some ARMv8 PSCI v0.2 u-boot patches, which can be seen here: > > http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/194210
Nice. I guess that could be reused for ARMv7 as well, at least conceptually. You are using C for some PSCI functions, specifically for cache flushing? Need to dig deeper... Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT RTC ITP SES-DE Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux _______________________________________________ U-Boot mailing list U-Boot@lists.denx.de http://lists.denx.de/mailman/listinfo/u-boot