On Fri 22 Apr 15:17 PDT 2016, Andy Gross wrote:
> This patch changes the cold_set_boot_addr function to use atomic SCM
> calls. This removes the need for memory allocation and instead places
> all arguments in registers.
>
> Signed-off-by: Andy Gross <andy.gross@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> drivers/firmware/qcom_scm-32.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
> 1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/qcom_scm-32.c b/drivers/firmware/qcom_scm-32.c
[..]
> /*
> * Set the cold/warm boot address for one of the CPU cores.
> */
> -static int qcom_scm_set_boot_addr(u32 addr, int flags)
> +static int qcom_scm_set_boot_addr(u32 addr, int flags, bool do_atomic)
> {
> struct {
> __le32 flags;
> __le32 addr;
> } cmd;
>
> - cmd.addr = cpu_to_le32(addr);
> - cmd.flags = cpu_to_le32(flags);
> - return qcom_scm_call(QCOM_SCM_SVC_BOOT, QCOM_SCM_BOOT_ADDR,
> - &cmd, sizeof(cmd), NULL, 0);
> + if (do_atomic) {
> + return qcom_scm_call_atomic(QCOM_SCM_SVC_BOOT,
> + QCOM_SCM_BOOT_ADDR, 2, flags, addr);
> + } else {
> +
> + cmd.addr = cpu_to_le32(addr);
> + cmd.flags = cpu_to_le32(flags);
> +
> + return qcom_scm_call(QCOM_SCM_SVC_BOOT, QCOM_SCM_BOOT_ADDR,
> + &cmd, sizeof(cmd), NULL, 0);
> + }
I would prefer that you split this into two functions, rather than
hiding two functions bodies in one function.
Perhaps qcom_scm_set_boot_addr and qcom_scm_set_boot_addr_atomic?
> }
>
Regards,
Bjorn
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
