On 8/18/23 07:57, Andre Przywara wrote:
On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 10:34:17 -0700
Sam Edwards <cfswo...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Sam,
Likewise Andre,
-static void __secure sunxi_set_entry_address(void *entry)
+static void __secure sunxi_cpu_set_entry(int __always_unused cpu, void *entry)
So what is the reasoning behind this change?
The primary reason is to be consistent with every other sunxi_cpu_*
function, while the *tertiary* reason is that it was useful to have that
argument preserved in a debug build, so that when I was tracing
execution I could be *sure* that the correct CPU was being chosen (this
was before I found out that the GIC400 base was being determined
incorrectly). As for the secondary reason...
If *none* of the Allwinner SoCs have independent secondary entry point
registers, we should not give the impression some do in the prototype.
Should later a SoC emerge that changes this, adjusting this one is the
least of our problems then.
Ah, but the T113 is already such an SoC. From the user manual:
- The Soft Entry Address Register of CPU0 is 0x070005C4.
- The Soft Entry Address Register of CPU1 is 0x070005C8.
...so my second reason for the function prototype being the way it is
(and perhaps something which I should be driving home in patch 4/5) is
indeed to give that impression: that it is *not* the case that none of
the sunxis have independent secondary entry point registers.
+void __secure sunxi_cpu_power_off(u32 cpuid)
Can you please mark this as static on the way? That does not seem to be
used anywhere, and even the name suggests it's local.
Saves 8 bytes of .text ;-)
Easy enough, it shall be done!
Thanks,
Sam
