From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Kevin Hilman Subject: Re: exynos5422-odroid-xu3: MCPM: only 6 of 8 CPUs coming online Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2014 12:00:28 -0700 Message-ID: <7hwq7ll4mr.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> References: <7133556.456161412823997169.JavaMail.weblogic@epml02> <7hzjd4lxc5.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> <54485433.2040008@samsung.com> <54485730.10803@samsung.com> <54485B99.2000703@samsung.com> <54485E99.9020004@samsung.com> <54485FDA.8070508@samsung.com> <7hfveeaifs.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> <7hk33p8nkn.fsf@deeprootsystems.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Return-path: Received: from mail-pd0-f170.google.com ([209.85.192.170]:64987 "EHLO mail-pd0-f170.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751892AbaJ0TAd (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Oct 2014 15:00:33 -0400 Received: by mail-pd0-f170.google.com with SMTP id z10so6181032pdj.15 for ; Mon, 27 Oct 2014 12:00:32 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (Mauro Ribeiro's message of "Sat, 25 Oct 2014 10:47:05 -0200") Sender: linux-samsung-soc-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-samsung-soc@vger.kernel.org To: Mauro Ribeiro Cc: Abhilash Kesavan , Abhijeet Dev , Joonyoung Shim , linux-samsung-soc , Chander Kashyap , Kukjin Kim Mauro Ribeiro writes: > As I wrote you previously outside the list this is the commit "ARM: > EXYNOS: SWRESET is needed to boot secondary CPU on exynos3250" that I > was expecting it to fix XU3 as well and apparently it is.. I'm not sure about that, since I haven't been able to get that to work. > Next week if everything goes as I plan I'll check if I can use the > same code to enable the A7's on XU3 as well. > If its possible to use the same code I'll try to upstream this next week. Excellent. I'd love to see a patch against mainline that using that function that works on the XU3. Note that mainline is using MCPM and that patch solves the problem for the older platsmp method. > It would be nice if Samsung could tell what in our u-boot (provided by > LSI) is needed to be changed as I can just push any changes to our > u-boot. Yes, I completely agree. This seems to me like a bootloader bug and the best solution here would be to have a bootloader fix. Kevin