On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 06:07:54PM +0530, pankaj.dubey wrote:
> So if CONFIG_SMP is disable then there is no sense of exynos_scu_enable
> as well. So wow about using below patch?
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Subject: [PATCH] ARM: exynos: fix build fail due to exynos_scu_enable
>
> Build failed if we disable CONFIG_SMP as shown below:
This is fine with me.
(...)
> Of-course your idea to move it in core SCU file is also good that we
> lots of duplication in different architecture can be avoided.
>
> In that case I can think of following patch:
>
> [PATCH] ARM: scu: use SCU device node to enable SCU
>
> Many platforms are duplicating code for enabling SCU, lets add
> common code to enable SCU using SCU device node so the duplication in
> each platform can be avoided.
>
> Suggested-by: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Pankaj Dubey <pankaj.dubey@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/arm/include/asm/smp_scu.h | 2 ++
> arch/arm/kernel/smp_scu.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/include/asm/smp_scu.h b/arch/arm/include/asm/smp_scu.h
> index bfe163c..e5e2492 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/include/asm/smp_scu.h
> +++ b/arch/arm/include/asm/smp_scu.h
> @@ -38,8 +38,10 @@ static inline int scu_power_mode(void __iomem
> *scu_base, unsigned int mode)
> #endif
>
> #if defined(CONFIG_SMP) && defined(CONFIG_HAVE_ARM_SCU)
> +int of_scu_enable(void);
> void scu_enable(void __iomem *scu_base);
> #else
> +static inline int of_scu_enable(void) {return 0;}
> static inline void scu_enable(void __iomem *scu_base) {}
> #endif
>
> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/smp_scu.c b/arch/arm/kernel/smp_scu.c
> index 72f9241..7c16d16 100644
> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/smp_scu.c
> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/smp_scu.c
> @@ -34,6 +34,23 @@ unsigned int __init scu_get_core_count(void __iomem
> *scu_base)
> return (ncores & 0x03) + 1;
> }
>
> +int of_scu_enable(void)
> +{
> + struct device_node *np;
> + void __iomem *scu_base;
> +
> + np = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "arm,cortex-a9-scu");
> + scu_base = of_iomap(np, 0);
> + of_node_put(np);
> + if (!scu_base) {
> + pr_err("%s failed to map scu_base\n", __func__);
> + return -ENOMEM;
> + }
> + scu_enable(scu_base);
> + iounmap(scu_base);
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> /*
> * Enable the SCU
> */
> --
>
>
> Followed by cleanup in various architecture where this piece of code is
> duplicated and all of them can call directly of_scu_enable()
This looks better to me.
>
>
> Please let me know which one you will prefer for fixing build issue.
>
> @Krzysztof, please let me know if I need to resubmit SCU series again
> with fix or you will accept build fix patch on top of already taken patch.
The code is already in my next/soc branch and I prefer to avoid
rebasing/dropping commits so how about:
1. Creating a generic wrapper which arm-soc will apply,
2. Provide me a tag with it (by arm-soc folks),
3. Fix the Exynos !SMP build on top of the tag (by using generic
approach).
Arnd,
Are you fine with this?
Best regards,
Krzysztof
--
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
