Hi Krzysztof,
On 16 December 2016 at 23:55, Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 10, 2016 at 06:38:39PM +0530, Pankaj Dubey wrote:
>> To remove dependency on soc_is_exynosMMMM macros and remove multiple
>> checks for such macros lets refactor code in firmware.c file.
>> SoC specific firmware_ops are separated and registered during
>> exynos_firmware_init based on matching machine compatible.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Pankaj Dubey <pankaj.dubey@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c | 100 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
>> 1 file changed, 75 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c
>> index fd6da54..525fbd9 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c
>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c
>> @@ -35,6 +35,25 @@ static void exynos_save_cp15(void)
>> : : "cc");
>> }
>>
>> +static int exynos3250_do_idle(unsigned long mode)
>> +{
>> + switch (mode) {
>> + case FW_DO_IDLE_AFTR:
>> + writel_relaxed(virt_to_phys(exynos_cpu_resume_ns),
>> + sysram_ns_base_addr + 0x24);
>> + writel_relaxed(EXYNOS_AFTR_MAGIC, sysram_ns_base_addr + 0x20);
>> + flush_cache_all();
>> + exynos_smc(SMC_CMD_SAVE, OP_TYPE_CORE,
>> + SMC_POWERSTATE_IDLE, 0);
>> + exynos_smc(SMC_CMD_SHUTDOWN, OP_TYPE_CLUSTER,
>> + SMC_POWERSTATE_IDLE, 0);
>> + break;
>> + case FW_DO_IDLE_SLEEP:
>> + exynos_smc(SMC_CMD_SLEEP, 0, 0, 0);
>> + }
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> static int exynos_do_idle(unsigned long mode)
>> {
>> switch (mode) {
>> @@ -44,14 +63,7 @@ static int exynos_do_idle(unsigned long mode)
>> writel_relaxed(virt_to_phys(exynos_cpu_resume_ns),
>> sysram_ns_base_addr + 0x24);
>> writel_relaxed(EXYNOS_AFTR_MAGIC, sysram_ns_base_addr + 0x20);
>> - if (soc_is_exynos3250()) {
>> - flush_cache_all();
>> - exynos_smc(SMC_CMD_SAVE, OP_TYPE_CORE,
>> - SMC_POWERSTATE_IDLE, 0);
>> - exynos_smc(SMC_CMD_SHUTDOWN, OP_TYPE_CLUSTER,
>> - SMC_POWERSTATE_IDLE, 0);
>> - } else
>> - exynos_smc(SMC_CMD_CPU0AFTR, 0, 0, 0);
>> + exynos_smc(SMC_CMD_CPU0AFTR, 0, 0, 0);
>> break;
>> case FW_DO_IDLE_SLEEP:
>> exynos_smc(SMC_CMD_SLEEP, 0, 0, 0);
>> @@ -59,28 +71,25 @@ static int exynos_do_idle(unsigned long mode)
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> -static int exynos_cpu_boot(int cpu)
>> +static int exynos4412_cpu_boot(int cpu)
>> {
>> /*
>> - * Exynos3250 doesn't need to send smc command for secondary CPU boot
>> - * because Exynos3250 removes WFE in secure mode.
>> - */
>> - if (soc_is_exynos3250())
>> - return 0;
>> -
>> - /*
>> * The second parameter of SMC_CMD_CPU1BOOT command means CPU id.
>> * But, Exynos4212 has only one secondary CPU so second parameter
>> * isn't used for informing secure firmware about CPU id.
>> */
>> - if (soc_is_exynos4212())
>> - cpu = 0;
>> + cpu = 0;
>
> Why are you clearing the cpu for Exynos4412? Was it tested on
> Exynos4412?
>
No I have not tested on Exynos4412.
I can see I missed this, and we are suppose clear the cpu only for Exynos4212.
I will fix this in v9 and resubmit again. Thanks for noticing this and
pointing out.
>> + exynos_smc(SMC_CMD_CPU1BOOT, cpu, 0, 0);
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>>
>> +static int exynos_cpu_boot(int cpu)
>> +{
>> exynos_smc(SMC_CMD_CPU1BOOT, cpu, 0, 0);
>
> This will be executed on Exynos4212...
>
Yes, which is wrong. This should be for Exynos4412 and previous one
(exynos4412_cpu_boot) is applicable for Exynos4212. I will fix this in v9.
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> -static int exynos_set_cpu_boot_addr(int cpu, unsigned long boot_addr)
>> +static int exynos4412_set_cpu_boot_addr(int cpu, unsigned long boot_addr)
>> {
>> void __iomem *boot_reg;
>>
>> @@ -94,14 +103,24 @@ static int exynos_set_cpu_boot_addr(int cpu, unsigned long boot_addr)
>> * additional offset for every CPU, with Exynos4412 being the only
>> * exception.
>> */
>> - if (soc_is_exynos4412())
>> - boot_reg += 4 * cpu;
>> + boot_reg += 4 * cpu;
>> + writel_relaxed(boot_addr, boot_reg);
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int exynos_set_cpu_boot_addr(int cpu, unsigned long boot_addr)
>> +{
>> + void __iomem *boot_reg;
>>
>> + if (!sysram_ns_base_addr)
>> + return -ENODEV;
>> +
>> + boot_reg = sysram_ns_base_addr + 0x1c;
>> writel_relaxed(boot_addr, boot_reg);
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> -static int exynos_get_cpu_boot_addr(int cpu, unsigned long *boot_addr)
>> +static int exynos4412_get_cpu_boot_addr(int cpu, unsigned long *boot_addr)
>> {
>> void __iomem *boot_reg;
>>
>> @@ -109,10 +128,19 @@ static int exynos_get_cpu_boot_addr(int cpu, unsigned long *boot_addr)
>> return -ENODEV;
>>
>> boot_reg = sysram_ns_base_addr + 0x1c;
>> + boot_reg += 4 * cpu;
>> + *boot_addr = readl_relaxed(boot_reg);
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +static int exynos_get_cpu_boot_addr(int cpu, unsigned long *boot_addr)
>> +{
>> + void __iomem *boot_reg;
>>
>> - if (soc_is_exynos4412())
>> - boot_reg += 4 * cpu;
>> + if (!sysram_ns_base_addr)
>> + return -ENODEV;
>>
>> + boot_reg = sysram_ns_base_addr + 0x1c;
>> *boot_addr = readl_relaxed(boot_reg);
>> return 0;
>> }
>> @@ -148,6 +176,23 @@ static int exynos_resume(void)
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> +static const struct firmware_ops exynos3250_firmware_ops = {
>> + .do_idle = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_EXYNOS_CPU_SUSPEND) ? exynos3250_do_idle : NULL,
>> + .set_cpu_boot_addr = exynos_set_cpu_boot_addr,
>> + .get_cpu_boot_addr = exynos_get_cpu_boot_addr,
>
> You know that lack of cpu_boot() is not equivalent to previous
> 'return 0' code? Now -ENOSYS will be returned... which is not a problem
> because return values for cpu_boot are ignored... just wondering whether
> this was planned.
Yes, I feel it should return -ENOSYS, if the particular ops is not
relevant or applicable
for some SoC, rather having blank implementation and returning 0 is
should return error
code.
>
>> + .suspend = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PM_SLEEP) ? exynos_suspend : NULL,
>> + .resume = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_EXYNOS_CPU_SUSPEND) ? exynos_resume : NULL,
>> +};
>> +
>> +static const struct firmware_ops exynos4412_firmware_ops = {
>> + .do_idle = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_EXYNOS_CPU_SUSPEND) ? exynos_do_idle : NULL,
>> + .set_cpu_boot_addr = exynos4412_set_cpu_boot_addr,
>> + .get_cpu_boot_addr = exynos4412_get_cpu_boot_addr,
>> + .cpu_boot = exynos4412_cpu_boot,
>> + .suspend = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PM_SLEEP) ? exynos_suspend : NULL,
>> + .resume = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_EXYNOS_CPU_SUSPEND) ? exynos_resume : NULL,
>> +};
>> +
>> static const struct firmware_ops exynos_firmware_ops = {
>> .do_idle = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_EXYNOS_CPU_SUSPEND) ? exynos_do_idle : NULL,
>> .set_cpu_boot_addr = exynos_set_cpu_boot_addr,
>> @@ -212,7 +257,12 @@ void __init exynos_firmware_init(void)
>>
>> pr_info("Running under secure firmware.\n");
>>
>> - register_firmware_ops(&exynos_firmware_ops);
>> + if (of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos3250"))
>> + register_firmware_ops(&exynos3250_firmware_ops);
>> + else if (of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos4412"))
>> + register_firmware_ops(&exynos4412_firmware_ops);
>> + else
>> + register_firmware_ops(&exynos_firmware_ops);
>
> I prefer one register_firmware_ops() call, so something like:
> const struct firmware_ops *ops;
> if (...)
> ops = &exynos3250_firmware_ops;
> else if ()
> ...
> register_firmware_ops(ops);
>
> It is a matter of taste but for me it is more common pattern, looks more
> readable and it reduces number of callers to register_firmware_ops() (so
> it is easier to find them).
>
This suggestion looks good to me as well. Will adopt this in v9.
Thanks for your review.
Pankaj Dubey
--
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
