From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: pankaj.dubey@samsung.com (pankaj.dubey) Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2016 08:05:42 +0530 Subject: [3/4] ARM: EXYNOS: Remove static mapping of SCU SFR In-Reply-To: <581C8C8F.5080100@samsung.com> References: <1478230764-13748-4-git-send-email-pankaj.dubey@samsung.com> <581C8C8F.5080100@samsung.com> Message-ID: <581FE87E.2040607@samsung.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi Alim, On Friday 04 November 2016 06:56 PM, Alim Akhtar wrote: > Hi Pankaj, > > On 11/04/2016 09:09 AM, Pankaj Dubey wrote: >> Lets remove static mapping of SCU SFR mainly used in CORTEX-A9 SoC >> based boards. >> Instead use mapping from device tree node of SCU. >> >> Signed-off-by: Pankaj Dubey >> --- >> arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c | 22 >> ---------------------- >> arch/arm/mach-exynos/include/mach/map.h | 2 -- >> arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c | 18 +++++++++++------- >> arch/arm/mach-exynos/pm.c | 14 +++++++++++--- >> arch/arm/mach-exynos/suspend.c | 15 +++++++++++---- >> arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/map-s5p.h | 4 ---- >> 6 files changed, 33 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c >> b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c >> index 757fc11..fa08ef9 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/exynos.c >> @@ -28,15 +28,6 @@ >> >> #include "common.h" >> >> -static struct map_desc exynos4_iodesc[] __initdata = { >> - { >> - .virtual = (unsigned long)S5P_VA_COREPERI_BASE, >> - .pfn = __phys_to_pfn(EXYNOS4_PA_COREPERI), >> - .length = SZ_8K, >> - .type = MT_DEVICE, >> - }, >> -}; >> - >> static struct platform_device exynos_cpuidle = { >> .name = "exynos_cpuidle", >> #ifdef CONFIG_ARM_EXYNOS_CPUIDLE >> @@ -99,17 +90,6 @@ static int __init exynos_fdt_map_chipid(unsigned >> long node, const char *uname, >> return 1; >> } >> >> -/* >> - * exynos_map_io >> - * >> - * register the standard cpu IO areas >> - */ >> -static void __init exynos_map_io(void) >> -{ >> - if (soc_is_exynos4()) >> - iotable_init(exynos4_iodesc, ARRAY_SIZE(exynos4_iodesc)); >> -} >> - >> static void __init exynos_init_io(void) >> { >> debug_ll_io_init(); >> @@ -118,8 +98,6 @@ static void __init exynos_init_io(void) >> >> /* detect cpu id and rev. */ >> s5p_init_cpu(S5P_VA_CHIPID); >> - >> - exynos_map_io(); >> } >> >> /* >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/include/mach/map.h >> b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/include/mach/map.h >> index 5fb0040..0eef407 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/include/mach/map.h >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/include/mach/map.h >> @@ -18,6 +18,4 @@ >> >> #define EXYNOS_PA_CHIPID 0x10000000 >> >> -#define EXYNOS4_PA_COREPERI 0x10500000 >> - >> #endif /* __ASM_ARCH_MAP_H */ >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c >> b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c >> index a5d6841..553d0d9 100644 >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos/platsmp.c >> @@ -224,11 +224,6 @@ static void write_pen_release(int val) >> sync_cache_w(&pen_release); >> } >> >> -static void __iomem *scu_base_addr(void) >> -{ >> - return (void __iomem *)(S5P_VA_SCU); >> -} >> - >> static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(boot_lock); >> >> static void exynos_secondary_init(unsigned int cpu) >> @@ -387,14 +382,23 @@ fail: >> >> static void __init exynos_smp_prepare_cpus(unsigned int max_cpus) >> { >> + struct device_node *np; >> + void __iomem *scu_base; >> int i; >> >> exynos_sysram_init(); >> >> exynos_set_delayed_reset_assertion(true); >> >> - if (read_cpuid_part() == ARM_CPU_PART_CORTEX_A9) >> - scu_enable(scu_base_addr()); >> + if (read_cpuid_part() == ARM_CPU_PART_CORTEX_A9) { >> + np = of_find_compatible_node(NULL, NULL, "arm,cortex-a9-scu"); > > what if of_find_compatible_node() fails? May be add a error check for > the same? Thanks for review. You are right of_find_compatible_node() is bound to fail, but only in case supplied compatible is missing in DT. In our case this piece of code will execute only for Cortex-A9 based SoC (which in case of Exynos SoC is applicable only for Exynos4 series) and we will for sure providing "arm,cortex-a9-scu" in DT, so there is no chance of failure. So I feel extra check on "np" for NULL will add no benefit here. Thanks, Pankaj Dubey