| Message ID | 1398388572-30239-4-git-send-email-cw00.choi@samsung.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 04/25/2014 06:46 AM, Chanwoo Choi wrote: > This patch fix the offset of CPU boot address and don't need to send smc call > of SMC_CMD_CPU1BOOT command for secondary CPU boot because Exynos3250 removes > WFE in secure mode. > > Signed-off-by: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com> > Acked-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@samsung.com> > --- > arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c | 10 ++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c > index aa01c42..386d01d 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c > @@ -31,11 +31,17 @@ static int exynos_do_idle(void) > static int exynos_cpu_boot(int cpu) > { > /* > + * Exynos3250 doesn't need to send smc command for secondary CPU boot > + * because Exynos3250 removes WFE in secure mode. > + */ > + if (soc_is_exynos3250()) > + return 0; > + /* > * The second parameter of SMC_CMD_CPU1BOOT command means CPU id. > * But, Exynos4212 has only one secondary CPU so second parameter > * isn't used for informing secure firmware about CPU id. > */ > - if (soc_is_exynos4212()) > + else if (soc_is_exynos4212()) This changes is not required. > cpu = 0; > > exynos_smc(SMC_CMD_CPU1BOOT, cpu, 0, 0); > @@ -46,7 +52,7 @@ static int exynos_set_cpu_boot_addr(int cpu, unsigned long boot_addr) > { > void __iomem *boot_reg = S5P_VA_SYSRAM_NS + 0x1c; > > - if (!soc_is_exynos4212()) > + if (!soc_is_exynos4212() && !soc_is_exynos3250()) > boot_reg += 4*cpu; > > __raw_writel(boot_addr, boot_reg); >
Hi, On 04/25/2014 01:30 PM, Tushar Behera wrote: > On 04/25/2014 06:46 AM, Chanwoo Choi wrote: >> This patch fix the offset of CPU boot address and don't need to send smc call >> of SMC_CMD_CPU1BOOT command for secondary CPU boot because Exynos3250 removes >> WFE in secure mode. >> >> Signed-off-by: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com> >> Acked-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@samsung.com> >> --- >> arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c | 10 ++++++++-- >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c >> index aa01c42..386d01d 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c >> @@ -31,11 +31,17 @@ static int exynos_do_idle(void) >> static int exynos_cpu_boot(int cpu) >> { >> /* >> + * Exynos3250 doesn't need to send smc command for secondary CPU boot >> + * because Exynos3250 removes WFE in secure mode. >> + */ >> + if (soc_is_exynos3250()) >> + return 0; >> + /* >> * The second parameter of SMC_CMD_CPU1BOOT command means CPU id. >> * But, Exynos4212 has only one secondary CPU so second parameter >> * isn't used for informing secure firmware about CPU id. >> */ >> - if (soc_is_exynos4212()) >> + else if (soc_is_exynos4212()) > > This changes is not required. Do you mean it as following? if (soc_is_exynos3250()) return 0 if (soc_is_exynos4212()) cpu = 0; > >> cpu = 0; >> >> exynos_smc(SMC_CMD_CPU1BOOT, cpu, 0, 0); >> @@ -46,7 +52,7 @@ static int exynos_set_cpu_boot_addr(int cpu, unsigned long boot_addr) >> { >> void __iomem *boot_reg = S5P_VA_SYSRAM_NS + 0x1c; >> >> - if (!soc_is_exynos4212()) >> + if (!soc_is_exynos4212() && !soc_is_exynos3250()) >> boot_reg += 4*cpu; >> >> __raw_writel(boot_addr, boot_reg); >> > >
On 04/25/2014 11:13 AM, Chanwoo Choi wrote: > Hi, > > On 04/25/2014 01:30 PM, Tushar Behera wrote: >> On 04/25/2014 06:46 AM, Chanwoo Choi wrote: >>> This patch fix the offset of CPU boot address and don't need to send smc call >>> of SMC_CMD_CPU1BOOT command for secondary CPU boot because Exynos3250 removes >>> WFE in secure mode. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com> >>> Acked-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@samsung.com> >>> --- >>> arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c | 10 ++++++++-- >>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c >>> index aa01c42..386d01d 100644 >>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c >>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c >>> @@ -31,11 +31,17 @@ static int exynos_do_idle(void) >>> static int exynos_cpu_boot(int cpu) >>> { >>> /* >>> + * Exynos3250 doesn't need to send smc command for secondary CPU boot >>> + * because Exynos3250 removes WFE in secure mode. >>> + */ >>> + if (soc_is_exynos3250()) >>> + return 0; >>> + /* >>> * The second parameter of SMC_CMD_CPU1BOOT command means CPU id. >>> * But, Exynos4212 has only one secondary CPU so second parameter >>> * isn't used for informing secure firmware about CPU id. >>> */ >>> - if (soc_is_exynos4212()) >>> + else if (soc_is_exynos4212()) >> >> This changes is not required. > > Do you mean it as following? > > if (soc_is_exynos3250()) > return 0 > > if (soc_is_exynos4212()) > cpu = 0; > Yes, logically the flow would be same and code would be more readable. >> >>> cpu = 0; >>> >>> exynos_smc(SMC_CMD_CPU1BOOT, cpu, 0, 0); >>> @@ -46,7 +52,7 @@ static int exynos_set_cpu_boot_addr(int cpu, unsigned long boot_addr) >>> { >>> void __iomem *boot_reg = S5P_VA_SYSRAM_NS + 0x1c; >>> >>> - if (!soc_is_exynos4212()) >>> + if (!soc_is_exynos4212() && !soc_is_exynos3250()) >>> boot_reg += 4*cpu; >>> >>> __raw_writel(boot_addr, boot_reg); >>> >> >> >
Hi, On 04/25/2014 02:54 PM, Tushar Behera wrote: > On 04/25/2014 11:13 AM, Chanwoo Choi wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On 04/25/2014 01:30 PM, Tushar Behera wrote: >>> On 04/25/2014 06:46 AM, Chanwoo Choi wrote: >>>> This patch fix the offset of CPU boot address and don't need to send smc call >>>> of SMC_CMD_CPU1BOOT command for secondary CPU boot because Exynos3250 removes >>>> WFE in secure mode. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.choi@samsung.com> >>>> Acked-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@samsung.com> >>>> --- >>>> arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c | 10 ++++++++-- >>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c >>>> index aa01c42..386d01d 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c >>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c >>>> @@ -31,11 +31,17 @@ static int exynos_do_idle(void) >>>> static int exynos_cpu_boot(int cpu) >>>> { >>>> /* >>>> + * Exynos3250 doesn't need to send smc command for secondary CPU boot >>>> + * because Exynos3250 removes WFE in secure mode. >>>> + */ >>>> + if (soc_is_exynos3250()) >>>> + return 0; >>>> + /* >>>> * The second parameter of SMC_CMD_CPU1BOOT command means CPU id. >>>> * But, Exynos4212 has only one secondary CPU so second parameter >>>> * isn't used for informing secure firmware about CPU id. >>>> */ >>>> - if (soc_is_exynos4212()) >>>> + else if (soc_is_exynos4212()) >>> >>> This changes is not required. >> >> Do you mean it as following? >> >> if (soc_is_exynos3250()) >> return 0 >> >> if (soc_is_exynos4212()) >> cpu = 0; >> > > Yes, logically the flow would be same and code would be more readable. OK, I'll fix it. Thanks, Chanwoo Choi
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c index aa01c42..386d01d 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c @@ -31,11 +31,17 @@ static int exynos_do_idle(void) static int exynos_cpu_boot(int cpu) { /* + * Exynos3250 doesn't need to send smc command for secondary CPU boot + * because Exynos3250 removes WFE in secure mode. + */ + if (soc_is_exynos3250()) + return 0; + /* * The second parameter of SMC_CMD_CPU1BOOT command means CPU id. * But, Exynos4212 has only one secondary CPU so second parameter * isn't used for informing secure firmware about CPU id. */ - if (soc_is_exynos4212()) + else if (soc_is_exynos4212()) cpu = 0; exynos_smc(SMC_CMD_CPU1BOOT, cpu, 0, 0); @@ -46,7 +52,7 @@ static int exynos_set_cpu_boot_addr(int cpu, unsigned long boot_addr) { void __iomem *boot_reg = S5P_VA_SYSRAM_NS + 0x1c; - if (!soc_is_exynos4212()) + if (!soc_is_exynos4212() && !soc_is_exynos3250()) boot_reg += 4*cpu; __raw_writel(boot_addr, boot_reg);