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@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Acked-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>> 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
--
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
