Dear Olof and Tomasz,
On 04/11/2014 05:39 PM, Tomasz Figa wrote:
> On 11.04.2014 08:32, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 04/11/2014 10:46 AM, Olof Johansson wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 06:37:12PM +0900, Chanwoo Choi wrote:
>>>> This patch add Exynos3250's SoC ID. Exynos 3250 is System-On-Chip(SoC) that
>>>> is based on the 32-bit RISC processor for Smartphone. Exynos3250 uses
>>>> Cortex-A7
>>>> dual cores and has a target speed of 1.0GHz.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.c...@samsung.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.p...@samsung.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>> arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c | 1 +
>>>> arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h | 10 ++++++++++
>>>> 3 files changed, 33 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig
>>>> index fc8bf18..6da8a68 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/Kconfig
>>>> @@ -11,6 +11,17 @@ if ARCH_EXYNOS
>>>>
>>>> menu "SAMSUNG EXYNOS SoCs Support"
>>>>
>>>> +config ARCH_EXYNOS3
>>>> + bool "SAMSUNG EXYNOS3"
>>>> + select ARM_AMBA
>>>> + select CLKSRC_OF
>>>> + select HAVE_ARM_SCU if SMP
>>>> + select HAVE_SMP
>>>> + select PINCTRL
>>>> + select PM_GENERIC_DOMAINS if PM_RUNTIME
>>>> + help
>>>> + Samsung EXYNOS3 SoCs based systems
>>>> +
>>>> config ARCH_EXYNOS4
>>>> bool "SAMSUNG EXYNOS4"
>>>> default y
>>>> @@ -41,6 +52,17 @@ config ARCH_EXYNOS5
>>>>
>>>> comment "EXYNOS SoCs"
>>>>
>>>> +config SOC_EXYNOS3250
>>>> + bool "SAMSUNG EXYNOS3250"
>>>> + default y
>>>> + depends on ARCH_EXYNOS3
>>>> + select ARCH_HAS_BANDGAP
>>>> + select ARM_CPU_SUSPEND if PM
>>>> + select PINCTRL_EXYNOS
>>>> + select SAMSUNG_DMADEV
>>>> + help
>>>> + Enable EXYNOS3250 CPU support
>>>> +
>>>> config CPU_EXYNOS4210
>>>> bool "SAMSUNG EXYNOS4210"
>>>> default y
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
>>>> index b32a907..b134868 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c
>>>> @@ -370,6 +370,7 @@ static void __init exynos_dt_machine_init(void)
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> static char const *exynos_dt_compat[] __initconst = {
>>>> + "samsung,exynos3250",
>>>
>>> Please consider samsung,exynos3 instead, so you don't have to update this
>>> table
>>> for every SoC. We've talked about this before..
>>
>> This patchset included only exynos3250.dtsi without exynos3.dtsi.
>> So, I added only "samsung,exynos3250" compatible name.
>
> There is no direct relation between dts file names and compatible string
> (although usually they correspond). You don't need exynos3.dtsi (at least
> until another SoC from this family shows up).
>
>>
>> Do you prefer to add SoC version as following?
>> + "samsung,exynos3",
>> + "samsung,exynos3250",
>>
>> or ?
>> + "samsung,exynos3",
>
> This is actually a good question. If adding exynos3 anyway, it probably
> wouldn't hurt to add exynos3250 anyway, to avoid adding it in future if some
> SoC specific quirks show up, especially when both of compatible strings need
> to be documented anyway.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> "samsung,exynos4",
>>>> "samsung,exynos4210",
>>>> "samsung,exynos4212",
>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h
>>>> b/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h
>>>> index 5992b8d..3d808f6b 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h
>>>> +++ b/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h
>>>> @@ -43,6 +43,9 @@ extern unsigned long samsung_cpu_id;
>>>> #define S5PV210_CPU_ID 0x43110000
>>>> #define S5PV210_CPU_MASK 0xFFFFF000
>>>>
>>>> +#define EXYNOS3250_SOC_ID 0xE3472000
>>>> +#define EXYNOS3_SOC_MASK 0xFFFFF000
>>>> +
>>>> #define EXYNOS4210_CPU_ID 0x43210000
>>>> #define EXYNOS4212_CPU_ID 0x43220000
>>>> #define EXYNOS4412_CPU_ID 0xE4412200
>>>> @@ -68,6 +71,7 @@ IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(s5p6440, S5P6440_CPU_ID, S5P64XX_CPU_MASK)
>>>> IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(s5p6450, S5P6450_CPU_ID, S5P64XX_CPU_MASK)
>>>> IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(s5pc100, S5PC100_CPU_ID, S5PC100_CPU_MASK)
>>>> IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(s5pv210, S5PV210_CPU_ID, S5PV210_CPU_MASK)
>>>> +IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos3250, EXYNOS3250_SOC_ID, EXYNOS3_SOC_MASK)
>>>> IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos4210, EXYNOS4210_CPU_ID, EXYNOS4_CPU_MASK)
>>>> IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos4212, EXYNOS4212_CPU_ID, EXYNOS4_CPU_MASK)
>>>> IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos4412, EXYNOS4412_CPU_ID, EXYNOS4_CPU_MASK)
>>>> @@ -126,6 +130,12 @@ IS_SAMSUNG_CPU(exynos5440, EXYNOS5440_SOC_ID,
>>>> EXYNOS5_SOC_MASK)
>>>> # define soc_is_s5pv210() 0
>>>> #endif
>>>>
>>>> +#if defined(CONFIG_SOC_EXYNOS3250)
>>>> +# define soc_is_exynos3250() is_samsung_exynos3250()
>>>> +#else
>>>> +# define soc_is_exynos3250() 0
>>>> +#endif
>>>
>>> In general, I think we have too much code littered with soc_is_<foo>() going
>>> on, so please try to avoid adding more for this SoC. Especially in cases
>>> where
>>> you just want to bail out of certain features where we might already have
>>> function pointers to control if a function is called or not, such as the
>>> firmware interfaces.
>>>
>>
>> Do you prefer dt helper function such as following function instead of new
>> soc_is_xx() ?
>> - of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos3250")
>>
>> If you are OK, I'll use of_machine_is_compatible() instead of soc_is_xx().
>
> First of all, there is still a lot of code in mach-exynos/ using the
> soc_is_xx() macros, so having some SoCs use them and other SoCs use
> of_machine_is_compatible() wouldn't make the code cleaner.
>
> For now, I wouldn't mind adding soc_is_exynos3250(), but in general such code
> surrounded with if (soc_is_xx()) blocks should be reworked to use something
> better, for example function pointers, as Olof suggested.
I thought 'function pointers' method instead of soc_is_xxx() macro as following
two case:
I need more detailed explanation/example of "for example function pointers, as
Olof suggested." sentence.
[case 1]
Each Exynos SoC has other function pointers according to compatible name of DT.
For example, arch/arm/mach-exynos/firmware.c
static const struct firmware_ops exynos_firmware_ops = {
.do_idle = exynos_do_idle,
.set_cpu_boot_addr = exynos_set_cpu_boot_addr,
.cpu_boot = exynos_cpu_boot,
};
static const struct firmware_ops exynos3250_firmware_ops = {
.do_idle = exynos_do_idle,
.set_cpu_boot_addr = exynos4212_set_cpu_boot_addr,
.cpu_boot = exynos3250_cpu_boot,
};
static const struct firmware_ops exynos4212_firmware_ops = {
.do_idle = exynos_do_idle,
.set_cpu_boot_addr = exynos4212_set_cpu_boot_addr,
.cpu_boot = exynos4212_cpu_boot,
};
struct secure_firmware {
char *name;
const struct firmware_ops *ops;
} exynos_secure_firmware[] __initconst = {
{ "samsung,secure-firmware", &exynos_firmware_ops },
{ "samsung,exynos3250-secure-firmware", &exynos3250_firmware_ops },
{ "samsung,exynos4212-secure-firmware", &exynos4212_firmware_ops },
};
[case 2]
Delete all the soc_is_xxx() macro and then
use only get_samsung_soc_id() function as following:
switch (get_samsung_soc_id()) {
case EXYNOS3250_SOC_ID:
// ...
break;
case EXYNOS4210_CPU_ID:
// ...
break;
case EXYNOS4212_CPU_ID:
// ...
break;
case EXYNOS4412_CPU_ID:
// ...
break;
case EXYNOS5250_SOC_ID:
// ...
break;
case EXYNOS5420_SOC_ID:
// ...
break;
case EXYNOS5440_SOC_ID:
// ...
break;
};
Best Regards,
Chanwoo Choi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
