27 May
2016
27 May
'16
7:25 p.m.
On 05/19/2016 01:23 AM, Hongbo Zhang wrote:
On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 6:39 PM, Andre Przywara andre.przywara@arm.com wrote:
Hi,
On 18/05/16 10:10, macro.wave.z@gmail.com wrote:
From: Hongbo Zhang hongbo.zhang@nxp.com
<snip>
...
static int fdt_psci(void *fdt) { #ifdef CONFIG_ARMV7_PSCI @@ -67,22 +96,16 @@ static int fdt_psci(void *fdt) return nodeoff; }
tmp = fdt_setprop_string(fdt, nodeoff, "compatible", "arm,psci");if (tmp)return tmp; tmp = fdt_setprop_string(fdt, nodeoff, "method", "smc"); if (tmp) return tmp;tmp = fdt_setprop_u32(fdt, nodeoff, "cpu_suspend", PSCI_FN_CPU_SUSPEND);if (tmp)return tmp;tmp = fdt_setprop_u32(fdt, nodeoff, "cpu_off", PSCI_FN_CPU_OFF);if (tmp)return tmp;tmp = fdt_setprop_u32(fdt, nodeoff, "cpu_on", PSCI_FN_CPU_ON);We keep those function ID specifiers in the node for compatibility reasons. For PSCI 0.2 and higher they are ignored, but older OSes can just use them as before.
Yes, good suggestion, thanks.
Hongbo,
I see you are in agreement. Are you going to respin this patch, or keep it as is?
York