> On Apr 29, 2015, at 11:38 AM, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2015 at 05:18:04PM +0100, Kumar Gala wrote: >> >>> 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/ > > Thanks for the link. It would be good if you could mention some users in > the commit message. I’ll update the commit message > >>>> +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. > > I don't follow. If nothing calls these on the 64-bit side, then there's > no interface they need to be there for. > > Thanks, > Mark. While nothing may call them, its still easier to try and keep the interface the same between 32 and 64-bit side of things. Its the equivalent of when we have a CONFIG_ option disabled, but still allow things to build. - 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
