On 11.06.2014 01:44, Chanwoo Choi wrote: > On 06/11/2014 08:35 AM, Tomasz Figa wrote: >> Hi Chanwoo, >> >> On 11.06.2014 01:27, Chanwoo Choi wrote: >>> This patch set AUTOWAKEUP_EN bit to ARM_CORE_CONFIGURATION register >>> because Exynos3250 removes WFE in secure mode so that turn on automatically >>> after setting CORE_LOCAL_PWR_EN. Also, This patch use dbs_sev() macro >>> to guarantee the data synchronization of command instead of IPI_WAKEUP >>> because Exynos3250 don't have WFE mode in secue mode. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Chanwoo Choi <cw00.c...@samsung.com> >>> Acked-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.p...@samsung.com> >>> --- >>> arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c | 9 ++++++++- >>> arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c | 8 ++++++-- >>> arch/arm/mach-exynos/regs-pmu.h | 4 ++++ >>> 3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>> >> >> This patch seems to be unneeded with Krzysztof's patch send a while ago >> [1]. As reported by Krzysztof, that patch apparently fixes SMP support >> on Exynos3250 and is much smaller and less invasive. >> >> [1] - http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.samsung-soc/32809 > > OK, > But Krzysztof's patch didn't include set S5P_CORE_AUTOWAKEUP_EN in > EXYNOS_ARM_CORE_CONFIGURATION(cpu). > and then use arch_send_wakeup_ipi_mask(cpumask_of(cpu)) command instead of > dsb_sev(). Exynos3250 don't need > send IPI message.
I don't know technical details about CPU boot-up on Exynos3250 as I haven't worked too much with this platform. According to my conversation with Krzysztof, he found S5P_CORE_AUTOWAKEUP_EN and dsb_sev() to be not needed. Instead S5P_CORE_WAKEUP_FROM_LOCAL_CFG can be set in EXYNOS_ARM_CORE1_STATUS and then normal arch_send_wakeup_ipi_mask() used. He might be able to provide more details. > > I'll send next patch which include only S5P_CORE_AUTOWAKEUP_EN and without > sending IPI message. I believe Krzysztof was first with this kind of patch and I'd prefer his approach as it introduces less changes. (First version posted on 15.05 [1], with my comments addressed in v2.) [1] http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.samsung-soc/31614 > > Krzysztof's patch used of_machine_is_compatible("samsung,exynos3250") instead > of soc_is_exynos3250(). > Did you agree? If you agree to use of_machine_is_compatible(), I'll use it on > next patch(v2). IMHO, there is no significant difference between those two. Both are bad, because they bind quirks to specific SoCs and it's hard to reuse them for new ones - every time a quirk is reused by a new SoC, a new (|| soc_is_xxx() or || of_machine_is_compatible("xxx")) must be added. Best regards, Tomasz -- 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/
