On Friday 02 August 2013 05:53 AM, Will Deacon wrote: > On Thu, Aug 01, 2013 at 07:17:13PM +0100, Santosh Shilimkar wrote: >> From: Vaibhav Bedia <vaibhav.be...@ti.com> >> >> The generic code is well equipped to differentiate between >> SMP and UP configurations.However, there are some devices which >> use Cortex-A9 MP core IP with 1 CPU as configuration. To let >> these SOCs to co-exist in a CONFIG_SMP=y build by leveraging >> the SMP_ON_UP support, we need to additionally check the >> number the cores in Cortex-A9 MPCore configuration. Without >> such a check in place, the startup code tries to execute >> ALT_SMP() set of instructions which lead to CPU faults. >> >> The issue was spotted on TI's Aegis device and this patch >> makes now the device work with omap2plus_defconfig which >> enables SMP by default. The change is kept limited to only >> Cortex-A9 MPCore detection code. >> >> Cc: Will Deacon <will.dea...@arm.com> >> Cc: Russell King <li...@arm.linux.org.uk> >> >> Acked-by: Sricharan R <r.sricha...@ti.com> >> Signed-off-by: Vaibhav Bedia <vaibhav.be...@ti.com> >> Signed-off-by: Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilim...@ti.com> >> --- >> arch/arm/kernel/head.S | 18 +++++++++++++++++- >> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/kernel/head.S b/arch/arm/kernel/head.S >> index 9cf6063..4924b11 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/kernel/head.S >> +++ b/arch/arm/kernel/head.S >> @@ -486,7 +486,23 @@ __fixup_smp: >> mrc p15, 0, r0, c0, c0, 5 @ read MPIDR >> and r0, r0, #0xc0000000 @ multiprocessing extensions and >> teq r0, #0x80000000 @ not part of a uniprocessor system? >> - moveq pc, lr @ yes, assume SMP >> + bne __fixup_smp_on_up @ no, assume UP >> + >> + @ Core indicates it is SMP. Check for Aegis SOC where a single >> + @ Cortex-A9 CPU is present but SMP operations fault. >> + mov r4, #0x41000000 >> + orr r4, r4, #0x0000c000 >> + orr r4, r4, #0x00000090 >> + teq r3, r4 @ Check for ARM Cortex-A9 >> + movne pc, lr @ Not ARM Cortex-A9, >> + >> + mrc p15, 4, r0, c15, c0 @ get SCU base address >> + teq r0, #0x0 @ '0' on actual UP A9 hardware >> + beq __fixup_smp_on_up @ So its an A9 UP > > What if somebody builds an MP A9 with the private peripheral base address at > 0x0? > Good point though we at least haven't seen one yet on the kernel lists. Any other way to avoid A9 UP case proceeding to the actual address 0 read which might be anything on a SOC.
Regards, Santosh -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-omap" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
