> On Apr 29, 2015, at 10:42 AM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Kumar, > > On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 08:23:58PM +0100, Kumar Gala wrote: >> Add an implementation of the SCM interface that works on ARM64/64-bit SoCs > > What is the intended use of this on arm64 SoCs? > > Given the negative reaction to the SMP bringup [1] code that seems to be > the only user, I'm somewhat confused as to why this is being pushed as a > non-RFC in the mean time. > > Are there other users of this interface code? If so, could you please > mention that in the commit message. I'd also ask that you would Cc me on > future postings of this series. > > […] The SCM interface is needed for other things like display: https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/6198691/ > >> +static int qcom_scm_set_boot_addr(void *entry, const cpumask_t *cpus, int flags) >> +{ >> + struct qcom_scm_desc desc = {0}; >> + unsigned int cpu = cpumask_first(cpus); >> + u64 mpidr_el1 = cpu_logical_map(cpu); >> + >> + /* For now we assume only a single cpu is set in the mask */ >> + WARN_ON(cpumask_weight(cpus) != 1); >> + >> + if (mpidr_el1 & ~MPIDR_HWID_BITMASK) { >> + pr_err("CPU%d:Failed to set boot address\n", cpu); >> + return -ENOSYS; >> + } >> + >> + desc.args[0] = virt_to_phys(entry); >> + desc.args[1] = BIT(MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr_el1, 0)); >> + desc.args[2] = BIT(MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr_el1, 1)); >> + desc.args[3] = BIT(MPIDR_AFFINITY_LEVEL(mpidr_el1, 2)); >> + desc.args[4] = ~0ULL; >> + desc.args[5] = QCOM_SCM_FLAG_HLOS | flags; >> + desc.arginfo = QCOM_SCM_ARGS(6); >> + >> + return qcom_scm_call(QCOM_SCM_SVC_BOOT, QCOM_SCM_BOOT_ADDR_MC, &desc); >> +} >> + >> +int __qcom_scm_set_cold_boot_addr(void *entry, const cpumask_t *cpus) >> +{ >> + int flags = QCOM_SCM_FLAG_COLDBOOT_MC; >> + >> + return qcom_scm_set_boot_addr(entry, cpus, flags); >> +} >> + >> +int __qcom_scm_set_warm_boot_addr(void *entry, const cpumask_t *cpus) >> +{ >> + int flags = QCOM_SCM_FLAG_WARMBOOT_MC; >> + >> + return qcom_scm_set_boot_addr(entry, cpus, flags); >> +} >> + >> +void __qcom_scm_cpu_power_down(u32 flags) >> +{ >> + struct qcom_scm_desc desc = {0}; >> + desc.args[0] = flags & QCOM_SCM_FLUSH_FLAG_MASK; >> + desc.arginfo = QCOM_SCM_ARGS(1); >> + >> + qcom_scm_call_atomic(QCOM_SCM_SVC_BOOT, QCOM_SCM_CMD_TERMINATE_PC, &desc); >> +} > > As mentioned in the other thread, I don't want to see this for arm64, > and must NAK this portion. I can have these return an error code, but we want to keep the interface the same between the 32-bit and 64-bit. - k -- Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arm-msm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
