Hi Simon, > -----Original Message----- > From: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2024 10:39 PM > To: Z.Q. Hou <zhiqiang....@nxp.com> > Cc: u-boot@lists.denx.de; tr...@konsulko.com; Peng Fan > <peng....@nxp.com>; feste...@gmail.com; ma...@denx.de; > lu...@denx.de; sean...@gmail.com; xypron.g...@gmx.de > Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 10/14] cmd: cpu: add release subcommand > > Hi Zhiqiang, > > On Tue, 30 Jul 2024 at 01:09, Zhiqiang Hou <zhiqiang....@nxp.com> wrote: > > > > From: Hou Zhiqiang <zhiqiang....@nxp.com> > > > > Add a new subcommand 'release' to bring up a core to run baremetal and > > RTOS applications. > > > > For example on i.MX8M Plus EVK, release the LAST core to run a RTOS > > application, passing the sequence number of the CPU core to release, > > here it is 3: > > u-boot=> cpu list > > 0: cpu@0 NXP i.MX8MP Rev1.1 A53 at 1200 MHz at 31C > > 1: cpu@1 NXP i.MX8MP Rev1.1 A53 at 1200 MHz at 30C > > 2: cpu@2 NXP i.MX8MP Rev1.1 A53 at 1200 MHz at 31C > > 3: cpu@3 NXP i.MX8MP Rev1.1 A53 at 1200 MHz at 31C > > > > u-boot=> load mmc 1:2 c0000000 /hello_world.bin > > 66008 bytes read in 5 ms (12.6 MiB/s) > > u-boot=> dcache flush; icache flush > > u-boot=> cpu release 3 c0000000 > > Released CPU core (mpidr: 0x3) to address 0xc0000000 > > > > Signed-off-by: Hou Zhiqiang <zhiqiang....@nxp.com> > > Reviewed-by: Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > --- > > V4: > > - Updated the change logs. > > > > cmd/cpu.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > > 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/cmd/cpu.c b/cmd/cpu.c > > index 9e323069b9..2755250756 100644 > > --- a/cmd/cpu.c > > +++ b/cmd/cpu.c > > @@ -3,6 +3,7 @@ > > * Copyright (c) 2015 Google, Inc > > * Written by Simon Glass <s...@chromium.org> > > * Copyright (c) 2017 Álvaro Fernández Rojas <nolt...@gmail.com> > > + * Copyright 2024 NXP > > */ > > > > #include <command.h> > > @@ -18,6 +19,19 @@ static const char > *cpu_feature_name[CPU_FEAT_COUNT] = { > > "Device ID", > > }; > > > > +static struct udevice *cpu_find_device(unsigned long cpu_id) { > > + struct udevice *dev; > > + > > + for (uclass_first_device(UCLASS_CPU, &dev); dev; > > + uclass_next_device(&dev)) { > > + if (cpu_id == dev_seq(dev)) > > + return dev; > > + } > > + > > + return NULL; > > +} > > + > > static int print_cpu_list(bool detail) { > > struct udevice *dev; > > @@ -82,10 +96,36 @@ static int do_cpu_detail(struct cmd_tbl *cmdtp, int > flag, int argc, > > return 0; > > } > > > > +static int do_cpu_release(struct cmd_tbl *cmdtp, int flag, int argc, > > + char *const argv[]) { > > + struct udevice *dev; > > + unsigned long cpu_id; > > + unsigned long long boot_addr; > > + > > + if (argc != 3) > > + return CMD_RET_USAGE; > > + > > + cpu_id = dectoul(argv[1], NULL); > > I just noticed this...normally we use hex for parameters.
Yes, but the <core ID> is from the CPU device sequence number listed by the 'cpu list', which is printed in dec. So I think use dec parameter here is reasonable. Thanks, Zhiqiang