On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 05/23/14 16:34, Arun Kumar K wrote: >> >> Exynos5800 is an octa core SoC which is based on the 5420 >> platform. This patch adds the basic support for it in the >> mach-exynos. >> >> Signed-off-by: Arun Kumar K<arun.kk@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig | 5 +++++ >> arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h | 11 ++++++++++- >> arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c | 2 +- >> 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig >> index 4663417..c5423da 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig >> @@ -99,6 +99,11 @@ config SOC_EXYNOS5440 >> help >> Enable EXYNOS5440 SoC support >> >> +config SOC_EXYNOS5800 >> + bool "SAMSUNG EXYNOS5800" >> + default y >> + depends on SOC_EXYNOS5420 >> + >> endmenu >> >> config EXYNOS5420_MCPM >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h >> index ae5f648..8fbc55b 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/common.h >> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ >> #define EXYNOS5250_SOC_ID 0x43520000 >> #define EXYNOS5420_SOC_ID 0xE5420000 >> #define EXYNOS5440_SOC_ID 0xE5440000 >> +#define EXYNOS5800_SOC_ID 0xE5422000 >> #define EXYNOS5_SOC_MASK 0xFFFFF000 >> >> extern unsigned long samsung_cpu_id; >> @@ -39,6 +40,7 @@ IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos4412, EXYNOS4412_CPU_ID, >> EXYNOS4_CPU_MASK) >> IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos5250, EXYNOS5250_SOC_ID, EXYNOS5_SOC_MASK) >> IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos5420, EXYNOS5420_SOC_ID, EXYNOS5_SOC_MASK) >> IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos5440, EXYNOS5440_SOC_ID, EXYNOS5_SOC_MASK) >> +IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos5800, EXYNOS5800_SOC_ID, EXYNOS5_SOC_MASK) >> >> #if defined(CONFIG_CPU_EXYNOS4210) >> # define soc_is_exynos4210() is_samsung_exynos4210() >> @@ -80,9 +82,16 @@ IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos5440, EXYNOS5440_SOC_ID, >> EXYNOS5_SOC_MASK) >> # define soc_is_exynos5440() 0 >> #endif >> >> +#if defined(CONFIG_SOC_EXYNOS5800) >> +# define soc_is_exynos5800() is_samsung_exynos5800() >> +#else >> +# define soc_is_exynos5800() 0 >> +#endif >> + >> #define soc_is_exynos4() (soc_is_exynos4210() || soc_is_exynos4212() || >> \ >> soc_is_exynos4412()) >> -#define soc_is_exynos5() (soc_is_exynos5250() || soc_is_exynos5420()) >> +#define soc_is_exynos5() (soc_is_exynos5250() || soc_is_exynos5420() || \ >> + soc_is_exynos5800()) >> >> void mct_init(void __iomem *base, int irq_g0, int irq_l0, int irq_l1); >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c >> b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c >> index 9c16da2..112bc66 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c >> @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ static inline void __iomem *cpu_boot_reg(int cpu) >> return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV); >> if (soc_is_exynos4412()) >> boot_reg += 4*cpu; >> - else if (soc_is_exynos5420()) >> + else if (soc_is_exynos5420() || soc_is_exynos5800()) >> boot_reg += 4; >> return boot_reg; >> } > > > + Arnd, Olof > > Hmm...yeah, 5800 doesn't boot without this and 3250 is also same situation. > In this time, soc_is_exynos0000() is required and I think, we need to sort > it out next time. Let's do one by one...;) > > Arnd, Olof how do you think about this? I agree with Olof's suggestion that > we need to add only dt for new SoC but we need more time... As long as you follow through on the cleanups I'm ok with it. In the past, that has not always been the case. I'm willing to give you one more (last) chance. -Olof -- 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
 |