Hi Tomasz, On 2 May 2014 23:24, Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Sachin, > > The whole series looks quite good, Thanks :) >but I have one concern about support for > Universal C210 board. Please see my comment inline. > > > On 02.05.2014 07:06, Sachin Kamat wrote: >> >> Instead of hardcoding the SYSRAM details for each SoC, >> pass this information through device tree (DT) and make >> the code SoC agnostic. Generic SRAM bindings are used >> for achieving this. >> >> Signed-off-by: Sachin Kamat <sachin.kamat@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Acked-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> >> Acked-by: Heiko Stuebner <heiko@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> This patch is based on linux next (next-20140501) on top of >> my Kconfig consolidation patch >> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.samsung-soc/28642 >> >> Changes since v1: >> Type and presence of sram nodes is SoC/board dependent. V1 mandated the >> presence of both the nodes and used to return an error if one of the >> nodes was absent and thus fail the boot altogether. Removed this >> dependency. >> >> Tested on 4210/4412 Origen, 5250/5420 Arndale and SMDK5420 boards. >> --- >> arch/arm/Kconfig | 1 + >> arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4210-universal_c210.dts | 17 ++++++ >> arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4210.dtsi | 18 +++++++ >> arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4x12.dtsi | 18 +++++++ >> arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5250.dtsi | 18 +++++++ >> arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos5420.dtsi | 18 +++++++ >> arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h | 1 + >> arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c | 64 >> ----------------------- >> arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c | 8 ++- >> arch/arm/mach-exynos/include/mach/map.h | 7 --- >> arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c | 33 ++++++++++-- >> 11 files changed, 128 insertions(+), 75 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/Kconfig b/arch/arm/Kconfig >> index a6aaaad19b1a..f66ea9453df9 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/Kconfig >> +++ b/arch/arm/Kconfig >> @@ -855,6 +855,7 @@ config ARCH_EXYNOS >> select S5P_DEV_MFC >> select SAMSUNG_DMADEV >> select SPARSE_IRQ >> + select SRAM >> select USE_OF >> help >> Support for SAMSUNG's EXYNOS SoCs (EXYNOS4/5) >> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4210-universal_c210.dts >> b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4210-universal_c210.dts >> index 63e34b24b04f..8d4de5c0d0c7 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4210-universal_c210.dts >> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/exynos4210-universal_c210.dts >> @@ -28,6 +28,23 @@ >> bootargs = "console=ttySAC2,115200N8 root=/dev/mmcblk0p5 >> rw rootwait earlyprintk panic=5 maxcpus=1"; >> }; >> >> + sram@02020000 { >> + status = "disabled"; > > > Here you just disable just the top level node of non-secure SYSRAM, but the > sub-nodes are still present and enabled. I was under the impression that disabling parent node would also disable the sub-nodes. I will disable all of them in this case. > > >> + }; >> + >> + sram@02025000 { >> + compatible = "mmio-sram"; >> + reg = <0x02025000 0x1000>; >> + #address-cells = <1>; >> + #size-cells = <1>; >> + ranges = <0 0x02025000 0x1000>; >> + >> + smp-sram@0 { >> + compatible = "samsung,exynos4210-sram"; >> + reg = <0x0 0x1000>; >> + }; >> + }; >> + >> mct@10050000 { >> compatible = "none"; >> }; > > > [snip] > > >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c >> b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c >> index 03e5e9f94705..0aac03204f9f 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c >> @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ >> #include <linux/jiffies.h> >> #include <linux/smp.h> >> #include <linux/io.h> >> +#include <linux/of_address.h> >> >> #include <asm/cacheflush.h> >> #include <asm/smp_plat.h> >> @@ -33,11 +34,33 @@ >> >> extern void exynos4_secondary_startup(void); >> >> +static void __iomem *sram_base_addr; >> +void __iomem *sram_ns_base_addr; >> + >> +static void __init exynos_smp_prepare_sram(void) >> +{ >> + struct device_node *node; >> + >> + node = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, >> "samsung,exynos4210-sram"); > > > Now here you don't check whether the node is "okay", so on Universal C210 it > will pick just the first node with this compatible string, Right. Missed that one. > > I think you should be using for_each_compatible_node() here, then check if > the node is "okay" using of_devicE_is_available() and only then use this > node to map the SYSRAM. OK. > > >> + if (node) { >> + sram_base_addr = of_iomap(node, 0); >> + if (!sram_base_addr) >> + pr_err("Secondary CPU boot address not found\n"); >> + } >> + >> + node = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, >> "samsung,exynos4210-sram-ns"); > > > Same here. OK. > > >> + if (node) { >> + sram_ns_base_addr = of_iomap(node, 0); >> + if (!sram_ns_base_addr) >> + pr_err("Secondary CPU boot address not found\n"); >> + } >> +} >> + >> static inline void __iomem *cpu_boot_reg_base(void) >> { >> if (soc_is_exynos4210() && samsung_rev() == EXYNOS4210_REV_1_1) >> return S5P_INFORM5; >> - return S5P_VA_SYSRAM; >> + return sram_base_addr; >> } >> >> static inline void __iomem *cpu_boot_reg(int cpu) >> @@ -147,7 +170,8 @@ static int exynos_boot_secondary(unsigned int cpu, >> struct task_struct *idle) >> * and fall back to boot register if it fails. >> */ >> if (call_firmware_op(set_cpu_boot_addr, phys_cpu, >> boot_addr)) >> - __raw_writel(boot_addr, cpu_boot_reg(phys_cpu)); >> + if (cpu_boot_reg_base()) > > > When can this condition be not met? I experimented with various combinations of node presence/absence in dts files and in one such case if we do not have the sram-ns node present (on arndale-octa), the system just hung at boot time (as base address was null) and this check became necessary. > > >> + __raw_writel(boot_addr, >> cpu_boot_reg(phys_cpu)); >> >> call_firmware_op(cpu_boot, phys_cpu); >> >> @@ -205,6 +229,8 @@ static void __init exynos_smp_prepare_cpus(unsigned >> int max_cpus) >> if (read_cpuid_part_number() == ARM_CPU_PART_CORTEX_A9) >> scu_enable(scu_base_addr()); >> >> + exynos_smp_prepare_sram(); >> + >> /* >> * Write the address of secondary startup into the >> * system-wide flags register. The boot monitor waits >> @@ -222,7 +248,8 @@ static void __init exynos_smp_prepare_cpus(unsigned >> int max_cpus) >> boot_addr = virt_to_phys(exynos4_secondary_startup); >> >> if (call_firmware_op(set_cpu_boot_addr, phys_cpu, >> boot_addr)) >> - __raw_writel(boot_addr, cpu_boot_reg(phys_cpu)); >> + if (cpu_boot_reg_base()) > > > Ditto. ditto. Thanks for your review. Will update the same in v3. -- With warm regards, Sachin -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
 |