| Message ID | 1490879826-16754-13-git-send-email-pankaj.dubey@samsung.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Headers | show |
On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Pankaj Dubey <pankaj.dubey@samsung.com> wrote: > * register the standard cpu IO areas > */ > -static void __init exynos_map_io(void) > +static int __init exynos_fdt_map_scu(unsigned long node, const char *uname, > + int depth, void *data) > { > - if (soc_is_exynos4()) > - iotable_init(exynos4_iodesc, ARRAY_SIZE(exynos4_iodesc)); > + if (!of_flat_dt_is_compatible(node, "samsung,exynos4210") && > + !of_flat_dt_is_compatible(node, "samsung,exynos4212") && > + !of_flat_dt_is_compatible(node, "samsung,exynos4412")) > + return 0; > + > + iotable_init(exynos4_iodesc, ARRAY_SIZE(exynos4_iodesc)); > + return 1; > } This seems really overcomplicated. From what I can tell, this is only needed to find the SCU address, but there are better ways to do that, either by looking up the SCU in the DT at the time you actually need it, or by calling scu_a9_get_base(). Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Thursday 30 March 2017 07:31 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Pankaj Dubey <pankaj.dubey@samsung.com> wrote: > >> * register the standard cpu IO areas >> */ >> -static void __init exynos_map_io(void) >> +static int __init exynos_fdt_map_scu(unsigned long node, const char *uname, >> + int depth, void *data) >> { >> - if (soc_is_exynos4()) >> - iotable_init(exynos4_iodesc, ARRAY_SIZE(exynos4_iodesc)); >> + if (!of_flat_dt_is_compatible(node, "samsung,exynos4210") && >> + !of_flat_dt_is_compatible(node, "samsung,exynos4212") && >> + !of_flat_dt_is_compatible(node, "samsung,exynos4412")) >> + return 0; >> + >> + iotable_init(exynos4_iodesc, ARRAY_SIZE(exynos4_iodesc)); >> + return 1; >> } > > This seems really overcomplicated. From what I can tell, this is only needed > to find the SCU address, but there are better ways to do that, either by > looking up the SCU in the DT at the time you actually need it, > or by calling scu_a9_get_base(). Indeed it's complicated and ugly, for the same reason I attempted to clean-up this part for Exynos SoC in patch series [1], which was accepted by Samsung maintainer Krzysztof and later during pull request rejected by ARM maintainers [2] [1]: https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg540498.html [2]: http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1612.0/01508.html Given the argument we can't adopt getting base address of SCU completely via DT without breaking OLD dtbs at some point, difficult to simplify these stuffs. Please guide which is the best way to handle such stuffs. In fact I made another attempt [3] to cleanup this SCU related stuffs for other ARM based platforms, but we could not arrive on some consensus at that time. I will try to attempt it again soon. [3]: http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg542351.html Thanks, Pankaj Dubey > > Arnd > > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 8:01 AM, pankaj.dubey <pankaj.dubey@samsung.com> wrote: > On Thursday 30 March 2017 07:31 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Pankaj Dubey <pankaj.dubey@samsung.com> wrote: >> >> This seems really overcomplicated. From what I can tell, this is only needed >> to find the SCU address, but there are better ways to do that, either by >> looking up the SCU in the DT at the time you actually need it, >> or by calling scu_a9_get_base(). > > Indeed it's complicated and ugly, for the same reason I attempted to > clean-up this part for Exynos SoC in patch series [1], which was > accepted by Samsung maintainer Krzysztof and later during pull request > rejected by ARM maintainers [2] > > [1]: https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg540498.html > [2]: http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1612.0/01508.html > > Given the argument we can't adopt getting base address of SCU completely > via DT without breaking OLD dtbs at some point, difficult to simplify > these stuffs. > > Please guide which is the best way to handle such stuffs. > > In fact I made another attempt [3] to cleanup this SCU related stuffs > for other ARM based platforms, but we could not arrive on some consensus > at that time. I will try to attempt it again soon. > > [3]: http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg542351.html I very much appreciate your attempts, this is very helpful. I'm sorry for making it so hard for you. I had remembered your previous series, but did not realize that you were the author of both this patch and the SCU cleanup. Let me try to understand the entire problem space better. These are my assumptions based on what you write: - A clean solution would be to map the SCU based on the DT as you implemented in the earlier patch series, but that breaks running new kernels with old DTBs, which we don't want. - Another clean solution would be to map the SCU based on scu_a9_get_base(), but that doesn't work on all variants of exynos4, because there is at least one (which?) that has incorrect data in the register - The approach in this patch works, but is really ugly as it requires parsing the fdt. Assuming that we don't want any of the approaches above, here are some other ideas that might be a little better: - Map the SCU later, just before we first need for calling scu_enable(): exynos_smp_prepare_cpus(), exynos_enter_aftr() or exynos_pm_resume(). All three are late enough that we can simply call ioremap() on the known physical address for the first caller, and they are all guarded by a ARM_CPU_PART_CORTEX_A9 check that should be equivalent to the EXYNOS4 check you have. - Split the exynos4 machine descriptor from the one for exynos5, and exynos3, the call the iotable_init unconditionally for exynos4. The same method would also let us get rid of some of the other of_machine_is_compatible() checks. Arnd -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Friday 31 March 2017 01:52 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 8:01 AM, pankaj.dubey <pankaj.dubey@samsung.com> wrote: >> On Thursday 30 March 2017 07:31 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote: >>> On Thu, Mar 30, 2017 at 3:17 PM, Pankaj Dubey <pankaj.dubey@samsung.com> wrote: >>> >>> This seems really overcomplicated. From what I can tell, this is only needed >>> to find the SCU address, but there are better ways to do that, either by >>> looking up the SCU in the DT at the time you actually need it, >>> or by calling scu_a9_get_base(). >> >> Indeed it's complicated and ugly, for the same reason I attempted to >> clean-up this part for Exynos SoC in patch series [1], which was >> accepted by Samsung maintainer Krzysztof and later during pull request >> rejected by ARM maintainers [2] >> >> [1]: https://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg540498.html >> [2]: http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1612.0/01508.html >> >> Given the argument we can't adopt getting base address of SCU completely >> via DT without breaking OLD dtbs at some point, difficult to simplify >> these stuffs. >> >> Please guide which is the best way to handle such stuffs. >> >> In fact I made another attempt [3] to cleanup this SCU related stuffs >> for other ARM based platforms, but we could not arrive on some consensus >> at that time. I will try to attempt it again soon. >> >> [3]: http://www.spinics.net/lists/arm-kernel/msg542351.html > > I very much appreciate your attempts, this is very helpful. I'm sorry > for making it so hard for you. I had remembered your previous series, > but did not realize that you were the author of both this patch and > the SCU cleanup. > > Let me try to understand the entire problem space better. These > are my assumptions based on what you write: > > - A clean solution would be to map the SCU based on the DT as > you implemented in the earlier patch series, but that breaks > running new kernels with old DTBs, which we don't want. > > - Another clean solution would be to map the SCU based on > scu_a9_get_base(), but that doesn't work on all variants of > exynos4, because there is at least one (which?) that has incorrect > data in the register Sorry, I am also not aware which variant does not support this. Currently for none of exynos4 we are using scu_a9_get_base(), and due to unavailability of all exynos4 based board with me, I can't test it. > > - The approach in this patch works, but is really ugly as it > requires parsing the fdt. > > Assuming that we don't want any of the approaches above, > here are some other ideas that might be a little better: > > - Map the SCU later, just before we first need for calling > scu_enable(): exynos_smp_prepare_cpus(), > exynos_enter_aftr() or exynos_pm_resume(). All three > are late enough that we can simply call ioremap() > on the known physical address for the first caller, > and they are all guarded by a > ARM_CPU_PART_CORTEX_A9 check that should > be equivalent to the EXYNOS4 check you have. > OK, let me try this, I think I can shift it at a little later point of boot. > - Split the exynos4 machine descriptor from the one > for exynos5, and exynos3, the call the iotable_init > unconditionally for exynos4. The same method would > also let us get rid of some of the other > of_machine_is_compatible() checks. > Once we move SCU mapping to later point of time, iotable_init can be dropped. Currently only for SCU mapping it is getting called. So this part will become more clean. Thanks for suggestion. I will work on it and submit next version. Pankaj Dubey > Arnd > > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h index 9424a8a..9d76cf8 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h @@ -14,102 +14,6 @@ #include <linux/platform_data/cpuidle-exynos.h> -#define EXYNOS3250_SOC_ID 0xE3472000 -#define EXYNOS3_SOC_MASK 0xFFFFF000 - -#define EXYNOS4210_CPU_ID 0x43210000 -#define EXYNOS4212_CPU_ID 0x43220000 -#define EXYNOS4412_CPU_ID 0xE4412200 -#define EXYNOS4_CPU_MASK 0xFFFE0000 - -#define EXYNOS5250_SOC_ID 0x43520000 -#define EXYNOS5410_SOC_ID 0xE5410000 -#define EXYNOS5420_SOC_ID 0xE5420000 -#define EXYNOS5440_SOC_ID 0xE5440000 -#define EXYNOS5800_SOC_ID 0xE5422000 -#define EXYNOS5_SOC_MASK 0xFFFFF000 - -extern unsigned long samsung_cpu_id; - -#define IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(name, id, mask) \ -static inline int is_samsung_##name(void) \ -{ \ - return ((samsung_cpu_id & mask) == (id & mask)); \ -} - -IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos3250, EXYNOS3250_SOC_ID, EXYNOS3_SOC_MASK) -IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos4210, EXYNOS4210_CPU_ID, EXYNOS4_CPU_MASK) -IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos4212, EXYNOS4212_CPU_ID, EXYNOS4_CPU_MASK) -IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos4412, EXYNOS4412_CPU_ID, EXYNOS4_CPU_MASK) -IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos5250, EXYNOS5250_SOC_ID, EXYNOS5_SOC_MASK) -IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos5410, EXYNOS5410_SOC_ID, EXYNOS5_SOC_MASK) -IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos5420, EXYNOS5420_SOC_ID, EXYNOS5_SOC_MASK) -IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos5440, EXYNOS5440_SOC_ID, EXYNOS5_SOC_MASK) -IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos5800, EXYNOS5800_SOC_ID, EXYNOS5_SOC_MASK) - -#if defined(CONFIG_SOC_EXYNOS3250) -# define soc_is_exynos3250() is_samsung_exynos3250() -#else -# define soc_is_exynos3250() 0 -#endif - -#if defined(CONFIG_CPU_EXYNOS4210) -# define soc_is_exynos4210() is_samsung_exynos4210() -#else -# define soc_is_exynos4210() 0 -#endif - -#if defined(CONFIG_SOC_EXYNOS4212) -# define soc_is_exynos4212() is_samsung_exynos4212() -#else -# define soc_is_exynos4212() 0 -#endif - -#if defined(CONFIG_SOC_EXYNOS4412) -# define soc_is_exynos4412() is_samsung_exynos4412() -#else -# define soc_is_exynos4412() 0 -#endif - -#define EXYNOS4210_REV_0 (0x0) -#define EXYNOS4210_REV_1_0 (0x10) -#define EXYNOS4210_REV_1_1 (0x11) - -#if defined(CONFIG_SOC_EXYNOS5250) -# define soc_is_exynos5250() is_samsung_exynos5250() -#else -# define soc_is_exynos5250() 0 -#endif - -#if defined(CONFIG_SOC_EXYNOS5410) -# define soc_is_exynos5410() is_samsung_exynos5410() -#else -# define soc_is_exynos5410() 0 -#endif - -#if defined(CONFIG_SOC_EXYNOS5420) -# define soc_is_exynos5420() is_samsung_exynos5420() -#else -# define soc_is_exynos5420() 0 -#endif - -#if defined(CONFIG_SOC_EXYNOS5440) -# define soc_is_exynos5440() is_samsung_exynos5440() -#else -# define soc_is_exynos5440() 0 -#endif - -#if defined(CONFIG_SOC_EXYNOS5800) -# define soc_is_exynos5800() is_samsung_exynos5800() -#else -# define soc_is_exynos5800() 0 -#endif - -#define soc_is_exynos4() (soc_is_exynos4210() || soc_is_exynos4212() || \ - soc_is_exynos4412()) -#define soc_is_exynos5() (soc_is_exynos5250() || soc_is_exynos5410() || \ - soc_is_exynos5420() || soc_is_exynos5800()) - extern u32 cp15_save_diag; extern u32 cp15_save_power; @@ -166,7 +70,6 @@ extern struct cpuidle_exynos_data cpuidle_coupled_exynos_data; extern void exynos_set_delayed_reset_assertion(bool enable); -extern unsigned int samsung_rev(void); extern void exynos_core_restart(u32 core_id); extern int exynos_set_boot_addr(u32 core_id, unsigned long boot_addr); extern int exynos_get_boot_addr(u32 core_id, unsigned long *boot_addr); diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c index c404c15..6543c6c 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c @@ -24,7 +24,6 @@ #include <asm/mach/map.h> #include <mach/map.h> -#include <plat/cpu.h> #include "common.h" @@ -76,50 +75,27 @@ static void __init exynos_init_late(void) exynos_pm_init(); } -static int __init exynos_fdt_map_chipid(unsigned long node, const char *uname, - int depth, void *data) -{ - struct map_desc iodesc; - const __be32 *reg; - int len; - - if (!of_flat_dt_is_compatible(node, "samsung,exynos4210-chipid") && - !of_flat_dt_is_compatible(node, "samsung,exynos5440-clock")) - return 0; - - reg = of_get_flat_dt_prop(node, "reg", &len); - if (reg == NULL || len != (sizeof(unsigned long) * 2)) - return 0; - - iodesc.pfn = __phys_to_pfn(be32_to_cpu(reg[0])); - iodesc.length = be32_to_cpu(reg[1]) - 1; - iodesc.virtual = (unsigned long)S5P_VA_CHIPID; - iodesc.type = MT_DEVICE; - iotable_init(&iodesc, 1); - return 1; -} - /* * exynos_map_io * * register the standard cpu IO areas */ -static void __init exynos_map_io(void) +static int __init exynos_fdt_map_scu(unsigned long node, const char *uname, + int depth, void *data) { - if (soc_is_exynos4()) - iotable_init(exynos4_iodesc, ARRAY_SIZE(exynos4_iodesc)); + if (!of_flat_dt_is_compatible(node, "samsung,exynos4210") && + !of_flat_dt_is_compatible(node, "samsung,exynos4212") && + !of_flat_dt_is_compatible(node, "samsung,exynos4412")) + return 0; + + iotable_init(exynos4_iodesc, ARRAY_SIZE(exynos4_iodesc)); + return 1; } static void __init exynos_init_io(void) { debug_ll_io_init(); - - of_scan_flat_dt(exynos_fdt_map_chipid, NULL); - - /* detect cpu id and rev. */ - s5p_init_cpu(S5P_VA_CHIPID); - - exynos_map_io(); + of_scan_flat_dt(exynos_fdt_map_scu, NULL); } /* diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c index af9332c..c44acc8 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c @@ -510,7 +510,7 @@ static int exynos_boot_secondary(unsigned int cpu, struct task_struct *idle) call_firmware_op(cpu_boot, core_id); - if (soc_is_exynos3250()) + if (of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos3250")) dsb_sev(); else arch_send_wakeup_ipi_mask(cpumask_of(cpu)); diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-samsung/cpu.c b/arch/arm/plat-samsung/cpu.c index a107b3a..e58f0f6 100644 --- a/arch/arm/plat-samsung/cpu.c +++ b/arch/arm/plat-samsung/cpu.c @@ -21,12 +21,6 @@ unsigned long samsung_cpu_id; static unsigned int samsung_cpu_rev; -unsigned int samsung_rev(void) -{ - return samsung_cpu_rev; -} -EXPORT_SYMBOL(samsung_rev); - void __init s3c64xx_init_cpu(void) { samsung_cpu_id = readl_relaxed(S3C_VA_SYS + 0x118); @@ -43,11 +37,3 @@ void __init s3c64xx_init_cpu(void) pr_info("Samsung CPU ID: 0x%08lx\n", samsung_cpu_id); } - -void __init s5p_init_cpu(const void __iomem *cpuid_addr) -{ - samsung_cpu_id = readl_relaxed(cpuid_addr); - samsung_cpu_rev = samsung_cpu_id & 0xFF; - - pr_info("Samsung CPU ID: 0x%08lx\n", samsung_cpu_id); -} diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h b/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h index b7b702a..913c176 100644 --- a/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h +++ b/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h @@ -115,8 +115,6 @@ extern void s3c24xx_init_io(struct map_desc *mach_desc, int size); extern void s3c64xx_init_cpu(void); extern void s5p_init_cpu(const void __iomem *cpuid_addr); -extern unsigned int samsung_rev(void); - extern void s3c24xx_init_uarts(struct s3c2410_uartcfg *cfg, int no); extern void s3c24xx_init_clocks(int xtal); diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/map-s5p.h b/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/map-s5p.h index 0fe2828..8a31d4b 100644 --- a/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/map-s5p.h +++ b/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/map-s5p.h @@ -13,8 +13,6 @@ #ifndef __ASM_PLAT_MAP_S5P_H #define __ASM_PLAT_MAP_S5P_H __FILE__ -#define S5P_VA_CHIPID S3C_ADDR(0x02000000) - #define S5P_VA_COREPERI_BASE S3C_ADDR(0x02800000) #define S5P_VA_COREPERI(x) (S5P_VA_COREPERI_BASE + (x)) #define S5P_VA_SCU S5P_VA_COREPERI(0x0)
Since now we have chipid driver in place and all dependencies of soc_is_exynosMMMM macros have been address, lets remove all such macros. Also remove static mapping of chipid SFR in exynos.c and related helper functions. Signed-off-by: Pankaj Dubey <pankaj.dubey@samsung.com> --- arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h | 97 ---------------------------- arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c | 44 +++---------- arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c | 2 +- arch/arm/plat-samsung/cpu.c | 14 ---- arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h | 2 - arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/map-s5p.h | 2 - 6 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 150 deletions(-)