[RESEND PATCH 1/6] Document: bindings: DT: Add SMP enable method for MT6580 SoC platform

[Matthias Brugger]

On Saturday, July 11, 2015 06:38:06 PM Yingjoe Chen wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-06-29 at 11:03 +0800, Yingjoe Chen wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-06-19 at 02:01 +0800, Scott Shu wrote:
> > > For MT6580 SoC platform, the secondary cores are in powered off state
> > > as default, so compared with MT65xx series SoC, one new enable method
> > > is needed. This method using the SPM (System Power Manager) inside
> > > the SCYSYS to control the CPU power.
> > > ---
> > > 
> > >  Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt | 1 +
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt
> > > b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt index ac2903d..fb80b2e
> > > 100644
> > > --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt
> > > +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt
> > > @@ -194,6 +194,7 @@ nodes to be present and contain the properties
> > > described below.> > 
> > >  			    "marvell,armada-380-smp"
> > >  			    "marvell,armada-390-smp"
> > >  			    "marvell,armada-xp-smp"
> > > 
> > > +			    "mediatek,mt6580-smp"
> > > 
> > >  			    "mediatek,mt65xx-smp"
> > >  			    "mediatek,mt81xx-tz-smp"
> > >  			    "qcom,gcc-msm8660"
> > 
> > Hi
> > 
> > It seems we have 3 different kinds of cpu enable method now, and
> > mt65xx-smp doesn't cover all mt65xx series. So maybe it make sense to
> > change naming before it got merged.
> > 
> > Short summary for these methods:
> > 
> > mt65xx-smp:    	For mt65xx socs which wakeup all cores at boot.
> > 
> > 		Tested on mt6589 by Matthias.
> > 
> > mt6580-smp:     Only first core is alive at boot, so need to wakeup
> > 
> > 		other cores using SPM. AFAIK only for mt6580 now.
> > 
> > mt81xx-tz-smp:  For soc which wakeup all cores at boot, and have
> > 
> > 		trustzone firmware. Suitable for mt8127, mt8135.
> 
> Hi Matthias, Arnd,
> 
> Any suggestion on the naming? Is it ok if I just rename mt65xx-smp to
> mt6589-smp since that's the only one we tested?
> 

Yes, that's fine for me.