* [PATCH] ARM: exynos4: fix secondary CPU boot @ 2011-05-20 13:46 Marc Zyngier 2011-05-25 17:28 ` Kukjin Kim 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Marc Zyngier @ 2011-05-20 13:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel Patch 7d30e8b38 (ARM: EXYNOS4: Add EXYNOS4 CPU initialization support) renamed the s5pv310 to exynos4, and also changed the value of EXYNOS4_PA_SYSRAM, which is used to release the secondary CPU from spinning in BL0. As a result, CPU1 can't be brought up anymore. This patch simply reverts EXYNOS4_PA_SYSRAM to its original value, which results in a working CPU1. Tested on an SMDK-v310. Cc: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> --- arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h b/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h index 6330b73..862967f 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ #include <plat/map-s5p.h> -#define EXYNOS4_PA_SYSRAM 0x02020000 +#define EXYNOS4_PA_SYSRAM 0x02025000 #define EXYNOS4_PA_FIMC0 0x11800000 #define EXYNOS4_PA_FIMC1 0x11810000 -- 1.7.0.4 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ARM: exynos4: fix secondary CPU boot 2011-05-20 13:46 [PATCH] ARM: exynos4: fix secondary CPU boot Marc Zyngier @ 2011-05-25 17:28 ` Kukjin Kim 2011-05-25 18:04 ` Marc Zyngier 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Kukjin Kim @ 2011-05-25 17:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On 05/20/11 06:46, Marc Zyngier wrote: > Patch 7d30e8b38 (ARM: EXYNOS4: Add EXYNOS4 CPU initialization support) > renamed the s5pv310 to exynos4, and also changed the value of > EXYNOS4_PA_SYSRAM, which is used to release the secondary CPU from > spinning in BL0. As a result, CPU1 can't be brought up anymore. > > This patch simply reverts EXYNOS4_PA_SYSRAM to its original value, > which results in a working CPU1. > > Tested on an SMDK-v310. > > Cc: Kukjin Kim<kgene.kim@samsung.com> > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier<marc.zyngier@arm.com> > --- > arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h b/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h > index 6330b73..862967f 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h > @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ > > #include<plat/map-s5p.h> > > -#define EXYNOS4_PA_SYSRAM 0x02020000 > +#define EXYNOS4_PA_SYSRAM 0x02025000 > Hi Marc, Hmm...the value, 0x02020000 is correct on Exynos4210 now. So can't apply this but I know, you're right on old version of Exynos4210...let's think again about this. Maybe I missed its commit for changing when I submitted it... > #define EXYNOS4_PA_FIMC0 0x11800000 > #define EXYNOS4_PA_FIMC1 0x11810000 -- Thanks. Best regards, Kgene. -- Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>, Senior Engineer, SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ARM: exynos4: fix secondary CPU boot 2011-05-25 17:28 ` Kukjin Kim @ 2011-05-25 18:04 ` Marc Zyngier 2011-05-25 19:06 ` Kukjin Kim 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Marc Zyngier @ 2011-05-25 18:04 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 10:28 -0700, Kukjin Kim wrote: > On 05/20/11 06:46, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > Patch 7d30e8b38 (ARM: EXYNOS4: Add EXYNOS4 CPU initialization support) > > renamed the s5pv310 to exynos4, and also changed the value of > > EXYNOS4_PA_SYSRAM, which is used to release the secondary CPU from > > spinning in BL0. As a result, CPU1 can't be brought up anymore. > > > > This patch simply reverts EXYNOS4_PA_SYSRAM to its original value, > > which results in a working CPU1. > > > > Tested on an SMDK-v310. > > > > Cc: Kukjin Kim<kgene.kim@samsung.com> > > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier<marc.zyngier@arm.com> > > --- > > arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h | 2 +- > > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h b/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h > > index 6330b73..862967f 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h > > @@ -23,7 +23,7 @@ > > > > #include<plat/map-s5p.h> > > > > -#define EXYNOS4_PA_SYSRAM 0x02020000 > > +#define EXYNOS4_PA_SYSRAM 0x02025000 > > > Hi Marc, > > Hmm...the value, 0x02020000 is correct on Exynos4210 now. > > So can't apply this but I know, you're right on old version of > Exynos4210...let's think again about this. So that address has changed between two SoC revisions? That's unfortunate, to say the least. I'm most probably using an early revision of the hardware (EVT0?), as it doesn't even support MCT. What about the following patch? M. >From c27e75b86e1ee181987a9364286a888421e76205 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 14:38:25 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] ARM: exynos4: fix secondary CPU boot on early SoC revisions It appears that the system-wide flags register that used to be at 0x02025000 on the first revision of Exynos4 has moved to 0x02020000. The kernel has been updated accordingly, but this unfortunately leaves early boards without SMP support (the secondary CPU spins endlessly in BL0 waiting for an address to be written at that memory location). Try to solve the problem by poking both locations. This should be safe as this is done early enough in the kernel boot process, and nobody should be using the SRAM yet. Tested on a vintage SMDK-v310. Cc: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com> Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> --- arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h | 1 + arch/arm/mach-exynos4/platsmp.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h b/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h index 0009e77..781e149 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ #include <plat/map-s5p.h> #define EXYNOS4_PA_SYSRAM 0x02020000 +#define EXYNOS4_PA_SYSRAM_EVT0 0x02025000 #define EXYNOS4_PA_FIMC0 0x11800000 #define EXYNOS4_PA_FIMC1 0x11810000 diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/platsmp.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/platsmp.c index c5e65a0..f261c34 100644 --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/platsmp.c +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/platsmp.c @@ -155,6 +155,7 @@ void __init smp_init_cpus(void) void __init platform_smp_prepare_cpus(unsigned int max_cpus) { int i; + void __iomem *sysram_evt0; /* * Initialise the present map, which describes the set of CPUs @@ -172,4 +173,17 @@ void __init platform_smp_prepare_cpus(unsigned int max_cpus) * secondary CPU branches to this address. */ __raw_writel(BSYM(virt_to_phys(exynos4_secondary_startup)), S5P_VA_SYSRAM); + + /* + * EVT0 has the system-wide flags register at a different address. + * Poke it as well, in case we're running on an old SoC revision. + */ + sysram_evt0 = ioremap(EXYNOS4_PA_SYSRAM_EVT0, SZ_4K); + if (!sysram_evt0) { + pr_err("Unable to remap EXYNOS4_PA_SYSRAM_EVT0\n"); + return; + } + + __raw_writel(BSYM(virt_to_phys(exynos4_secondary_startup)), sysram_evt0); + iounmap(sysram_evt0); } -- 1.7.0.4 -- Reality is an implementation detail. ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ARM: exynos4: fix secondary CPU boot 2011-05-25 18:04 ` Marc Zyngier @ 2011-05-25 19:06 ` Kukjin Kim 2011-05-26 15:11 ` Marc Zyngier 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Kukjin Kim @ 2011-05-25 19:06 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On 05/25/11 11:04, Marc Zyngier wrote: > On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 10:28 -0700, Kukjin Kim wrote: >> On 05/20/11 06:46, Marc Zyngier wrote: (snip) > So that address has changed between two SoC revisions? That's > unfortunate, to say the least. I'm most probably using an early revision > of the hardware (EVT0?), as it doesn't even support MCT. > I'm afraid :( and I agree secondary CPU should work on all of Exynos4210. But I'm still think about the method... > What about the following patch? > Uhm...this is really hack but I'd like to use another normal way...? > M. > >> From c27e75b86e1ee181987a9364286a888421e76205 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Marc Zyngier<marc.zyngier@arm.com> > Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 14:38:25 +0100 > Subject: [PATCH] ARM: exynos4: fix secondary CPU boot on early SoC revisions > > It appears that the system-wide flags register that used to be at > 0x02025000 on the first revision of Exynos4 has moved to 0x02020000. > > The kernel has been updated accordingly, but this unfortunately leaves > early boards without SMP support (the secondary CPU spins endlessly > in BL0 waiting for an address to be written at that memory location). > > Try to solve the problem by poking both locations. This should be > safe as this is done early enough in the kernel boot process, and nobody > should be using the SRAM yet. > > Tested on a vintage SMDK-v310. vintage ;) > > Cc: Kukjin Kim<kgene.kim@samsung.com> > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier<marc.zyngier@arm.com> > --- > arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h | 1 + > arch/arm/mach-exynos4/platsmp.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ > 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h b/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h > index 0009e77..781e149 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h > @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ > #include<plat/map-s5p.h> > > #define EXYNOS4_PA_SYSRAM 0x02020000 > +#define EXYNOS4_PA_SYSRAM_EVT0 0x02025000 > > #define EXYNOS4_PA_FIMC0 0x11800000 > #define EXYNOS4_PA_FIMC1 0x11810000 > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/platsmp.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/platsmp.c > index c5e65a0..f261c34 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/platsmp.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/platsmp.c > @@ -155,6 +155,7 @@ void __init smp_init_cpus(void) > void __init platform_smp_prepare_cpus(unsigned int max_cpus) > { > int i; > + void __iomem *sysram_evt0; > > /* > * Initialise the present map, which describes the set of CPUs > @@ -172,4 +173,17 @@ void __init platform_smp_prepare_cpus(unsigned int max_cpus) > * secondary CPU branches to this address. > */ > __raw_writel(BSYM(virt_to_phys(exynos4_secondary_startup)), S5P_VA_SYSRAM); > + > + /* > + * EVT0 has the system-wide flags register at a different address. > + * Poke it as well, in case we're running on an old SoC revision. > + */ > + sysram_evt0 = ioremap(EXYNOS4_PA_SYSRAM_EVT0, SZ_4K); Hmm...first of all, need to check whether can ioremap the area on newer one but I'm out off office now so will check it after backing. > + if (!sysram_evt0) { > + pr_err("Unable to remap EXYNOS4_PA_SYSRAM_EVT0\n"); Do we really need 'pr_err' here?... > + return; > + } > + > + __raw_writel(BSYM(virt_to_phys(exynos4_secondary_startup)), sysram_evt0); > + iounmap(sysram_evt0); > } -- Thanks. Best regards, Kgene. -- Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>, Senior Engineer, SW Solution Development Team, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ARM: exynos4: fix secondary CPU boot 2011-05-25 19:06 ` Kukjin Kim @ 2011-05-26 15:11 ` Marc Zyngier 2011-06-02 7:01 ` Kyungmin Park 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Marc Zyngier @ 2011-05-26 15:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 12:06 -0700, Kukjin Kim wrote: > On 05/25/11 11:04, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 10:28 -0700, Kukjin Kim wrote: > >> On 05/20/11 06:46, Marc Zyngier wrote: > > (snip) > > > So that address has changed between two SoC revisions? That's > > unfortunate, to say the least. I'm most probably using an early revision > > of the hardware (EVT0?), as it doesn't even support MCT. > > > I'm afraid :( and I agree secondary CPU should work on all of > Exynos4210. But I'm still think about the method... > > > What about the following patch? > > > Uhm...this is really hack but I'd like to use another normal way...? Oh, no question about the hack status. The trouble is, unless there is a sure way to tell which SoC revision we're running on, there's little else we can do than poke both locations and pray. Is there such a way to identify the SoC revision? > >> From c27e75b86e1ee181987a9364286a888421e76205 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: Marc Zyngier<marc.zyngier@arm.com> > > Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 14:38:25 +0100 > > Subject: [PATCH] ARM: exynos4: fix secondary CPU boot on early SoC revisions > > > > It appears that the system-wide flags register that used to be at > > 0x02025000 on the first revision of Exynos4 has moved to 0x02020000. > > > > The kernel has been updated accordingly, but this unfortunately leaves > > early boards without SMP support (the secondary CPU spins endlessly > > in BL0 waiting for an address to be written at that memory location). > > > > Try to solve the problem by poking both locations. This should be > > safe as this is done early enough in the kernel boot process, and nobody > > should be using the SRAM yet. > > > > Tested on a vintage SMDK-v310. > > vintage ;) Well, I thought I was the uber-cool guy in the office because of that shiny blue board on my desk, only to discover that it's sooo last year... ;-) > > > > Cc: Kukjin Kim<kgene.kim@samsung.com> > > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier<marc.zyngier@arm.com> > > --- > > arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h | 1 + > > arch/arm/mach-exynos4/platsmp.c | 14 ++++++++++++++ > > 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h b/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h > > index 0009e77..781e149 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h > > @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ > > #include<plat/map-s5p.h> > > > > #define EXYNOS4_PA_SYSRAM 0x02020000 > > +#define EXYNOS4_PA_SYSRAM_EVT0 0x02025000 > > > > #define EXYNOS4_PA_FIMC0 0x11800000 > > #define EXYNOS4_PA_FIMC1 0x11810000 > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/platsmp.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/platsmp.c > > index c5e65a0..f261c34 100644 > > --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/platsmp.c > > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/platsmp.c > > @@ -155,6 +155,7 @@ void __init smp_init_cpus(void) > > void __init platform_smp_prepare_cpus(unsigned int max_cpus) > > { > > int i; > > + void __iomem *sysram_evt0; > > > > /* > > * Initialise the present map, which describes the set of CPUs > > @@ -172,4 +173,17 @@ void __init platform_smp_prepare_cpus(unsigned int max_cpus) > > * secondary CPU branches to this address. > > */ > > __raw_writel(BSYM(virt_to_phys(exynos4_secondary_startup)), S5P_VA_SYSRAM); > > + > > + /* > > + * EVT0 has the system-wide flags register at a different address. > > + * Poke it as well, in case we're running on an old SoC revision. > > + */ > > + sysram_evt0 = ioremap(EXYNOS4_PA_SYSRAM_EVT0, SZ_4K); > > Hmm...first of all, need to check whether can ioremap the area on newer > one but I'm out off office now so will check it after backing. The only documentation I have access to refers to the iRAM (SRAM) being mapped between 0x02020000 and 0x02040000. Unless the HW guys have gone completely wild and changed this range as well, I think we're pretty safe. > > + if (!sysram_evt0) { > > + pr_err("Unable to remap EXYNOS4_PA_SYSRAM_EVT0\n"); > > Do we really need 'pr_err' here?... No. Anything will do. Though not being able to ioremap() that region may indicate further trouble down the road. > > + return; > > + } > > + > > + __raw_writel(BSYM(virt_to_phys(exynos4_secondary_startup)), sysram_evt0); > > + iounmap(sysram_evt0); > > } > Cheers, M. -- Reality is an implementation detail. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ARM: exynos4: fix secondary CPU boot 2011-05-26 15:11 ` Marc Zyngier @ 2011-06-02 7:01 ` Kyungmin Park 2011-06-02 8:34 ` Marc Zyngier 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Kyungmin Park @ 2011-06-02 7:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:11 AM, Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@arm.com> wrote: > On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 12:06 -0700, Kukjin Kim wrote: >> On 05/25/11 11:04, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> > On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 10:28 -0700, Kukjin Kim wrote: >> >> On 05/20/11 06:46, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> >> (snip) >> >> > So that address has changed between two SoC revisions? That's >> > unfortunate, to say the least. I'm most probably using an early revision >> > of the hardware (EVT0?), as it doesn't even support MCT. >> > >> I'm afraid :( and I agree secondary CPU should work on all of >> Exynos4210. But I'm still think about the method... >> >> > What about the following patch? >> > >> Uhm...this is really hack but I'd like to use another normal way...? > > Oh, no question about the hack status. The trouble is, unless there is a > sure way to tell which SoC revision we're running on, there's little > else we can do than poke both locations and pray. > > Is there such a way to identify the SoC revision? It's also required for OneNAND. as you know C210 EVT0 OneNAND DMA has bug and need to workaround. platform codes should provide the these function. please see the OMAP codes. how to handle it. Thank you, Kyungmin Park > >> >> From c27e75b86e1ee181987a9364286a888421e76205 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> > From: Marc Zyngier<marc.zyngier@arm.com> >> > Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 14:38:25 +0100 >> > Subject: [PATCH] ARM: exynos4: fix secondary CPU boot on early SoC revisions >> > >> > It appears that the system-wide flags register that used to be at >> > 0x02025000 on the first revision of Exynos4 has moved to 0x02020000. >> > >> > The kernel has been updated accordingly, but this unfortunately leaves >> > early boards without SMP support (the secondary CPU spins endlessly >> > in BL0 waiting for an address to be written at that memory location). >> > >> > Try to solve the problem by poking both locations. This should be >> > safe as this is done early enough in the kernel boot process, and nobody >> > should be using the SRAM yet. >> > >> > Tested on a vintage SMDK-v310. >> >> vintage ;) > > Well, I thought I was the uber-cool guy in the office because of that > shiny blue board on my desk, only to discover that it's sooo last > year... ;-) > >> > >> > Cc: Kukjin Kim<kgene.kim@samsung.com> >> > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier<marc.zyngier@arm.com> >> > --- >> > ? arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h | ? ?1 + >> > ? arch/arm/mach-exynos4/platsmp.c ? ? ? ? ?| ? 14 ++++++++++++++ >> > ? 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) >> > >> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h b/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h >> > index 0009e77..781e149 100644 >> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h >> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h >> > @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ >> > ? #include<plat/map-s5p.h> >> > >> > ? #define EXYNOS4_PA_SYSRAM ? ? ? ? 0x02020000 >> > +#define EXYNOS4_PA_SYSRAM_EVT0 ? ? ? ? ? ? 0x02025000 >> > >> > ? #define EXYNOS4_PA_FIMC0 ? ? ? ? ?0x11800000 >> > ? #define EXYNOS4_PA_FIMC1 ? ? ? ? ?0x11810000 >> > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/platsmp.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/platsmp.c >> > index c5e65a0..f261c34 100644 >> > --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/platsmp.c >> > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/platsmp.c >> > @@ -155,6 +155,7 @@ void __init smp_init_cpus(void) >> > ? void __init platform_smp_prepare_cpus(unsigned int max_cpus) >> > ? { >> > ? ? int i; >> > + ? void __iomem *sysram_evt0; >> > >> > ? ? /* >> > ? ? ?* Initialise the present map, which describes the set of CPUs >> > @@ -172,4 +173,17 @@ void __init platform_smp_prepare_cpus(unsigned int max_cpus) >> > ? ? ?* secondary CPU branches to this address. >> > ? ? ?*/ >> > ? ? __raw_writel(BSYM(virt_to_phys(exynos4_secondary_startup)), S5P_VA_SYSRAM); >> > + >> > + ? /* >> > + ? ?* EVT0 has the system-wide flags register at a different address. >> > + ? ?* Poke it as well, in case we're running on an old SoC revision. >> > + ? ?*/ >> > + ? sysram_evt0 = ioremap(EXYNOS4_PA_SYSRAM_EVT0, SZ_4K); >> >> Hmm...first of all, need to check whether can ioremap the area on newer >> one but I'm out off office now so will check it after backing. > > The only documentation I have access to refers to the iRAM (SRAM) being > mapped between 0x02020000 and 0x02040000. Unless the HW guys have gone > completely wild and changed this range as well, I think we're pretty > safe. > >> > + ? if (!sysram_evt0) { >> > + ? ? ? ? ? pr_err("Unable to remap EXYNOS4_PA_SYSRAM_EVT0\n"); >> >> Do we really need 'pr_err' here?... > > No. Anything will do. Though not being able to ioremap() that region may > indicate further trouble down the road. > >> > + ? ? ? ? ? return; >> > + ? } >> > + >> > + ? __raw_writel(BSYM(virt_to_phys(exynos4_secondary_startup)), sysram_evt0); >> > + ? iounmap(sysram_evt0); >> > ? } >> > > Cheers, > > ? ? ? ?M. > -- > Reality is an implementation detail. > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in > the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at ?http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ARM: exynos4: fix secondary CPU boot 2011-06-02 7:01 ` Kyungmin Park @ 2011-06-02 8:34 ` Marc Zyngier 2011-06-02 8:39 ` Kyungmin Park 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Marc Zyngier @ 2011-06-02 8:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 16:01 +0900, Kyungmin Park wrote: > On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:11 AM, Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@arm.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 12:06 -0700, Kukjin Kim wrote: > >> On 05/25/11 11:04, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >> > On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 10:28 -0700, Kukjin Kim wrote: > >> >> On 05/20/11 06:46, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >> > >> (snip) > >> > >> > So that address has changed between two SoC revisions? That's > >> > unfortunate, to say the least. I'm most probably using an early revision > >> > of the hardware (EVT0?), as it doesn't even support MCT. > >> > > >> I'm afraid :( and I agree secondary CPU should work on all of > >> Exynos4210. But I'm still think about the method... > >> > >> > What about the following patch? > >> > > >> Uhm...this is really hack but I'd like to use another normal way...? > > > > Oh, no question about the hack status. The trouble is, unless there is a > > sure way to tell which SoC revision we're running on, there's little > > else we can do than poke both locations and pray. > > > > Is there such a way to identify the SoC revision? > > It's also required for OneNAND. as you know C210 EVT0 OneNAND DMA has > bug and need to workaround. > > platform codes should provide the these function. please see the OMAP > codes. how to handle it. So we know there's a need beyond the wish to see the second core up and running on my board. Now what is the proper method to detect the revision of the SOC? Handling it is no problem, once we have the information. Unfortunately the documentation I have is less than helpful on that subject. Cheers, M. -- Reality is an implementation detail. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ARM: exynos4: fix secondary CPU boot 2011-06-02 8:34 ` Marc Zyngier @ 2011-06-02 8:39 ` Kyungmin Park 2011-06-02 8:54 ` Marc Zyngier 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Kyungmin Park @ 2011-06-02 8:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@arm.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 16:01 +0900, Kyungmin Park wrote: >> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:11 AM, Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@arm.com> wrote: >> > On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 12:06 -0700, Kukjin Kim wrote: >> >> On 05/25/11 11:04, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> >> > On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 10:28 -0700, Kukjin Kim wrote: >> >> >> On 05/20/11 06:46, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> >> >> >> (snip) >> >> >> >> > So that address has changed between two SoC revisions? That's >> >> > unfortunate, to say the least. I'm most probably using an early revision >> >> > of the hardware (EVT0?), as it doesn't even support MCT. >> >> > >> >> I'm afraid :( and I agree secondary CPU should work on all of >> >> Exynos4210. But I'm still think about the method... >> >> >> >> > What about the following patch? >> >> > >> >> Uhm...this is really hack but I'd like to use another normal way...? >> > >> > Oh, no question about the hack status. The trouble is, unless there is a >> > sure way to tell which SoC revision we're running on, there's little >> > else we can do than poke both locations and pray. >> > >> > Is there such a way to identify the SoC revision? >> >> It's also required for OneNAND. as you know C210 EVT0 OneNAND DMA has >> bug and need to workaround. >> >> platform codes should provide the these function. please see the OMAP >> codes. how to handle it. > > So we know there's a need beyond the wish to see the second core up and > running on my board. > > Now what is the proper method to detect the revision of the SOC? > Handling it is no problem, once we have the information. Unfortunately > the documentation I have is less than helpful on that subject. It can be distinguished by chip id. but there's no code to handle this one. 0x4320 0200 EVT0 0x4321 0210 EVT1 0x4321 0211 EVT2 Thank you, Kyungmin Park > > Cheers, > > ? ? ? ?M. > -- > Reality is an implementation detail. > > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ARM: exynos4: fix secondary CPU boot 2011-06-02 8:39 ` Kyungmin Park @ 2011-06-02 8:54 ` Marc Zyngier 2011-06-14 22:26 ` Angus Ainslie 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Marc Zyngier @ 2011-06-02 8:54 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 17:39 +0900, Kyungmin Park wrote: > On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@arm.com> wrote: > > On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 16:01 +0900, Kyungmin Park wrote: > >> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:11 AM, Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@arm.com> wrote: > >> > On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 12:06 -0700, Kukjin Kim wrote: > >> >> On 05/25/11 11:04, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >> >> > On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 10:28 -0700, Kukjin Kim wrote: > >> >> >> On 05/20/11 06:46, Marc Zyngier wrote: > >> >> > >> >> (snip) > >> >> > >> >> > So that address has changed between two SoC revisions? That's > >> >> > unfortunate, to say the least. I'm most probably using an early revision > >> >> > of the hardware (EVT0?), as it doesn't even support MCT. > >> >> > > >> >> I'm afraid :( and I agree secondary CPU should work on all of > >> >> Exynos4210. But I'm still think about the method... > >> >> > >> >> > What about the following patch? > >> >> > > >> >> Uhm...this is really hack but I'd like to use another normal way...? > >> > > >> > Oh, no question about the hack status. The trouble is, unless there is a > >> > sure way to tell which SoC revision we're running on, there's little > >> > else we can do than poke both locations and pray. > >> > > >> > Is there such a way to identify the SoC revision? > >> > >> It's also required for OneNAND. as you know C210 EVT0 OneNAND DMA has > >> bug and need to workaround. > >> > >> platform codes should provide the these function. please see the OMAP > >> codes. how to handle it. > > > > So we know there's a need beyond the wish to see the second core up and > > running on my board. > > > > Now what is the proper method to detect the revision of the SOC? > > Handling it is no problem, once we have the information. Unfortunately > > the documentation I have is less than helpful on that subject. > > It can be distinguished by chip id. but there's no code to handle this one. > > 0x4320 0200 EVT0 > 0x4321 0210 EVT1 > 0x4321 0211 EVT2 Apparently, the low 8 bits can be overloaded by the efuse. Which makes telling EVT1 from EVT2 unreliable. But at least this is a start. I'll see if I can come up with something minimal enough to be merged as a fix. Thanks, M. -- Reality is an implementation detail. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ARM: exynos4: fix secondary CPU boot 2011-06-02 8:54 ` Marc Zyngier @ 2011-06-14 22:26 ` Angus Ainslie 2011-06-15 0:52 ` Kyungmin Park 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Angus Ainslie @ 2011-06-14 22:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:54 AM, Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@arm.com> wrote: > On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 17:39 +0900, Kyungmin Park wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@arm.com> wrote: >> > On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 16:01 +0900, Kyungmin Park wrote: >> >> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:11 AM, Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@arm.com> wrote: >> >> > On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 12:06 -0700, Kukjin Kim wrote: >> >> >> On 05/25/11 11:04, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> >> >> > On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 10:28 -0700, Kukjin Kim wrote: >> >> >> >> On 05/20/11 06:46, Marc Zyngier wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> (snip) >> >> >> >> >> >> > So that address has changed between two SoC revisions? That's >> >> >> > unfortunate, to say the least. I'm most probably using an early revision >> >> >> > of the hardware (EVT0?), as it doesn't even support MCT. >> >> >> > >> >> >> I'm afraid :( and I agree secondary CPU should work on all of >> >> >> Exynos4210. But I'm still think about the method... >> >> >> >> >> >> > What about the following patch? >> >> >> > >> >> >> Uhm...this is really hack but I'd like to use another normal way...? >> >> > >> >> > Oh, no question about the hack status. The trouble is, unless there is a >> >> > sure way to tell which SoC revision we're running on, there's little >> >> > else we can do than poke both locations and pray. >> >> > >> >> > Is there such a way to identify the SoC revision? >> >> >> >> It's also required for OneNAND. as you know C210 EVT0 OneNAND DMA has >> >> bug and need to workaround. >> >> >> >> platform codes should provide the these function. please see the OMAP >> >> codes. how to handle it. >> > >> > So we know there's a need beyond the wish to see the second core up and >> > running on my board. >> > >> > Now what is the proper method to detect the revision of the SOC? >> > Handling it is no problem, once we have the information. Unfortunately >> > the documentation I have is less than helpful on that subject. >> >> It can be distinguished by chip id. but there's no code to handle this one. >> >> 0x4320 0200 EVT0 >> 0x4321 0210 EVT1 >> 0x4321 0211 EVT2 > > Apparently, the low 8 bits can be overloaded by the efuse. Which makes > telling EVT1 from EVT2 unreliable. > > But at least this is a start. I'll see if I can come up with something > minimal enough to be merged as a fix. > > Thanks, > > ? ? ? ?M. > -- > Reality is an implementation detail. > > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in > the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at ?http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Would something like this work instead ? It seems to work on EVT0 but I haven't had a chance to test on EVT1. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ARM: exynos4: fix secondary CPU boot 2011-06-14 22:26 ` Angus Ainslie @ 2011-06-15 0:52 ` Kyungmin Park 2011-06-15 9:53 ` Marc Zyngier 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Kyungmin Park @ 2011-06-15 0:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 7:26 AM, Angus Ainslie <angus.ainslie@linaro.org> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:54 AM, Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@arm.com> wrote: >> On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 17:39 +0900, Kyungmin Park wrote: >>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@arm.com> wrote: >>> > On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 16:01 +0900, Kyungmin Park wrote: >>> >> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:11 AM, Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@arm.com> wrote: >>> >> > On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 12:06 -0700, Kukjin Kim wrote: >>> >> >> On 05/25/11 11:04, Marc Zyngier wrote: >>> >> >> > On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 10:28 -0700, Kukjin Kim wrote: >>> >> >> >> On 05/20/11 06:46, Marc Zyngier wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> (snip) >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > So that address has changed between two SoC revisions? That's >>> >> >> > unfortunate, to say the least. I'm most probably using an early revision >>> >> >> > of the hardware (EVT0?), as it doesn't even support MCT. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> I'm afraid :( and I agree secondary CPU should work on all of >>> >> >> Exynos4210. But I'm still think about the method... >>> >> >> >>> >> >> > What about the following patch? >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> Uhm...this is really hack but I'd like to use another normal way...? >>> >> > >>> >> > Oh, no question about the hack status. The trouble is, unless there is a >>> >> > sure way to tell which SoC revision we're running on, there's little >>> >> > else we can do than poke both locations and pray. >>> >> > >>> >> > Is there such a way to identify the SoC revision? >>> >> >>> >> It's also required for OneNAND. as you know C210 EVT0 OneNAND DMA has >>> >> bug and need to workaround. >>> >> >>> >> platform codes should provide the these function. please see the OMAP >>> >> codes. how to handle it. >>> > >>> > So we know there's a need beyond the wish to see the second core up and >>> > running on my board. >>> > >>> > Now what is the proper method to detect the revision of the SOC? >>> > Handling it is no problem, once we have the information. Unfortunately >>> > the documentation I have is less than helpful on that subject. >>> >>> It can be distinguished by chip id. but there's no code to handle this one. >>> >>> 0x4320 0200 EVT0 >>> 0x4321 0210 EVT1 >>> 0x4321 0211 EVT2 >> >> Apparently, the low 8 bits can be overloaded by the efuse. Which makes >> telling EVT1 from EVT2 unreliable. >> >> But at least this is a start. I'll see if I can come up with something >> minimal enough to be merged as a fix. >> >> Thanks, >> >> ? ? ? ?M. >> -- >> Reality is an implementation detail. >> >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in >> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at ?http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> > > Would something like this work instead ? It seems to work on EVT0 but > I haven't had a chance to test on EVT1. > > > From a4c1b643596599df9d79776c9b94f2536661a4c9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Angus Ainslie <angus.ainslie@linaro.org> > Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 16:13:35 -0600 > Subject: [PATCH] ARM: exynos4: fix secondary CPU boot on early SoC revisions > > It appears that the system-wide flags register that used to be at > 0x02025000 on the first revision of Exynos4 has moved to 0x02020000. > > The kernel has been updated accordingly, but this unfortunately leaves > early boards without SMP support (the secondary CPU spins endlessly > in BL0 waiting for an address to be written at that memory location). > > Use the CPU id to decide whether we are running on EVT0 and use the > old location in that case. Hi Angus, Now this information is also required for other device drivers such as OneNAND. So can you make a generic function at common place such as plat-s5p? I mean we need a generic helper function for handling the EVT version at samsung platform. Thank you, Kyungmin Park > > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> > Signed-off-by: Angus Ainslie <angus.ainslie@linaro.org> > --- > ?arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h | ? ?1 + > ?arch/arm/mach-exynos4/platsmp.c ? ? ? ? ?| ? 23 ++++++++++++++++++++++- > ?2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h > b/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h > index 0009e77..781e149 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h > @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ > ?#include <plat/map-s5p.h> > > ?#define EXYNOS4_PA_SYSRAM ? ? ? ? ? ? ?0x02020000 > +#define EXYNOS4_PA_SYSRAM_EVT0 ? ? ? ? 0x02025000 > > ?#define EXYNOS4_PA_FIMC0 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 0x11800000 > ?#define EXYNOS4_PA_FIMC1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 0x11810000 > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/platsmp.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/platsmp.c > index c5e65a0..5f70aec 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/platsmp.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/platsmp.c > @@ -155,6 +155,8 @@ void __init smp_init_cpus(void) > ?void __init platform_smp_prepare_cpus(unsigned int max_cpus) > ?{ > ? ? ? ?int i; > + ? ? ? unsigned long idcode; > + ? ? ? void __iomem *sysram_evt0; > > ? ? ? ?/* > ? ? ? ? * Initialise the present map, which describes the set of CPUs > @@ -165,11 +167,30 @@ void __init platform_smp_prepare_cpus(unsigned > int max_cpus) > > ? ? ? ?scu_enable(scu_base_addr()); > > + ? ? ? idcode = __raw_readl(S5P_VA_CHIPID); > + > ? ? ? ?/* > ? ? ? ? * Write the address of secondary startup into the > ? ? ? ? * system-wide flags register. The boot monitor waits > ? ? ? ? * until it receives a soft interrupt, and then the > ? ? ? ? * secondary CPU branches to this address. > ? ? ? ? */ > - ? ? ? __raw_writel(BSYM(virt_to_phys(exynos4_secondary_startup)), > S5P_VA_SYSRAM); > + ? ? ? if ((idcode & 0xF0000) == 0) { > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? /* > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?* EVT0 has the system-wide flags register at a > different address. > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?* Poke it as well, in case we're running on an old > SoC revision. > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?*/ > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? sysram_evt0 = ioremap(EXYNOS4_PA_SYSRAM_EVT0, SZ_4K); > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? if (!sysram_evt0) { > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? pr_err("Unable to remap EXYNOS4_PA_SYSRAM_EVT0\n"); > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? return; > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? } > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? __raw_writel(BSYM(virt_to_phys(exynos4_secondary_startup)), > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?sysram_evt0); > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? iounmap(sysram_evt0); > + ? ? ? } else { > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? __raw_writel(BSYM(virt_to_phys(exynos4_secondary_startup)), > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?S5P_VA_SYSRAM); > + ? ? ? } > + > ?} > -- > 1.7.4.1 > > -- > Angus Ainslie <angus.ainslie@linaro.org> > Team Lead, Samsung Landing Team > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in > the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at ?http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ARM: exynos4: fix secondary CPU boot 2011-06-15 0:52 ` Kyungmin Park @ 2011-06-15 9:53 ` Marc Zyngier 2011-06-29 5:52 ` Kyungmin Park 0 siblings, 1 reply; 13+ messages in thread From: Marc Zyngier @ 2011-06-15 9:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel On 15/06/11 01:52, Kyungmin Park wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 7:26 AM, Angus Ainslie <angus.ainslie@linaro.org> wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:54 AM, Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@arm.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 17:39 +0900, Kyungmin Park wrote: >>>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 5:34 PM, Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@arm.com> wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 2011-06-02 at 16:01 +0900, Kyungmin Park wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:11 AM, Marc Zyngier <Marc.Zyngier@arm.com> wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 12:06 -0700, Kukjin Kim wrote: >>>>>>>> On 05/25/11 11:04, Marc Zyngier wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 10:28 -0700, Kukjin Kim wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 05/20/11 06:46, Marc Zyngier wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (snip) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So that address has changed between two SoC revisions? That's >>>>>>>>> unfortunate, to say the least. I'm most probably using an early revision >>>>>>>>> of the hardware (EVT0?), as it doesn't even support MCT. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm afraid :( and I agree secondary CPU should work on all of >>>>>>>> Exynos4210. But I'm still think about the method... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> What about the following patch? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Uhm...this is really hack but I'd like to use another normal way...? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Oh, no question about the hack status. The trouble is, unless there is a >>>>>>> sure way to tell which SoC revision we're running on, there's little >>>>>>> else we can do than poke both locations and pray. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Is there such a way to identify the SoC revision? >>>>>> >>>>>> It's also required for OneNAND. as you know C210 EVT0 OneNAND DMA has >>>>>> bug and need to workaround. >>>>>> >>>>>> platform codes should provide the these function. please see the OMAP >>>>>> codes. how to handle it. >>>>> >>>>> So we know there's a need beyond the wish to see the second core up and >>>>> running on my board. >>>>> >>>>> Now what is the proper method to detect the revision of the SOC? >>>>> Handling it is no problem, once we have the information. Unfortunately >>>>> the documentation I have is less than helpful on that subject. >>>> >>>> It can be distinguished by chip id. but there's no code to handle this one. >>>> >>>> 0x4320 0200 EVT0 >>>> 0x4321 0210 EVT1 >>>> 0x4321 0211 EVT2 >>> >>> Apparently, the low 8 bits can be overloaded by the efuse. Which makes >>> telling EVT1 from EVT2 unreliable. >>> >>> But at least this is a start. I'll see if I can come up with something >>> minimal enough to be merged as a fix. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> M. >>> -- >>> Reality is an implementation detail. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-samsung-soc" in >>> the body of a message to majordomo at vger.kernel.org >>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>> >> >> Would something like this work instead ? It seems to work on EVT0 but >> I haven't had a chance to test on EVT1. >> >> >> From a4c1b643596599df9d79776c9b94f2536661a4c9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: Angus Ainslie <angus.ainslie@linaro.org> >> Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2011 16:13:35 -0600 >> Subject: [PATCH] ARM: exynos4: fix secondary CPU boot on early SoC revisions >> >> It appears that the system-wide flags register that used to be at >> 0x02025000 on the first revision of Exynos4 has moved to 0x02020000. >> >> The kernel has been updated accordingly, but this unfortunately leaves >> early boards without SMP support (the secondary CPU spins endlessly >> in BL0 waiting for an address to be written at that memory location). >> >> Use the CPU id to decide whether we are running on EVT0 and use the >> old location in that case. > > Hi Angus, > > Now this information is also required for other device drivers such as OneNAND. > So can you make a generic function at common place such as plat-s5p? > I mean we need a generic helper function for handling the EVT version > at samsung platform. Here's what I have in my current tree. I just added a s3c_get_chip_id() helper, and used that in the secondary boot path. The same function could be used for OneNAND and MCT. Cheers, M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny... -------------- next part -------------- An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: 0001-ARM-exynos4-fix-secondary-CPU-boot-on-early-SoC-revi.txt URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/attachments/20110615/6ce337a7/attachment.txt> ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ARM: exynos4: fix secondary CPU boot 2011-06-15 9:53 ` Marc Zyngier @ 2011-06-29 5:52 ` Kyungmin Park 0 siblings, 0 replies; 13+ messages in thread From: Kyungmin Park @ 2011-06-29 5:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-arm-kernel It's first step to handle the EVT. Acked-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@samsung.com> > Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny... > From a24392183d396fab790557b0efb35e840c9e8a81 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> > Date: Fri, 20 May 2011 14:38:25 +0100 > Subject: [PATCH] ARM: exynos4: fix secondary CPU boot on early SoC revisions > > It appears that the system-wide flags register that used to be at > 0x02025000 on the first revision of Exynos4 has moved to 0x02020000. > > The kernel has been updated accordingly, but this unfortunately leaves > early boards without SMP support (the secondary CPU spins endlessly > in BL0 waiting for an address to be written at that memory location). > > Solve the problem by providing an s3c_get_chip_id() function, common > to all s3c/s5p implementations, and test the result on the secondary boot > path. > > Revision table, as provided by Kyungmin Park <kmpark@infradead.org>: > 0x4320 0200 EVT0 > 0x4321 0210 EVT1 > 0x4321 0211 EVT2 > > The last 8 bits can be overrided by efuses, so only bits [16:19] are > used to identify the revision. > > Tested on a vintage SMDK-v310. > > Cc: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com> > Cc: Kyungmin Park <kmpark@infradead.org> > Signed-off-by: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> > --- > ?arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h | ? ?1 + > ?arch/arm/mach-exynos4/platsmp.c ? ? ? ? ?| ? 22 +++++++++++++++++++++- > ?arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h | ? ?2 ++ > ?arch/arm/plat-samsung/init.c ? ? ? ? ? ? | ? ?8 ++++++++ > ?4 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h b/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h > index 57d8074..da08f5c 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/include/mach/map.h > @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@ > ?#include <plat/map-s5p.h> > > ?#define EXYNOS4_PA_SYSRAM ? ? ? ? ? ? ?0x02020000 > +#define EXYNOS4_PA_SYSRAM_EVT0 ? ? ? ? 0x02025000 > > ?#define EXYNOS4_PA_FIMC0 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 0x11800000 > ?#define EXYNOS4_PA_FIMC1 ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 0x11810000 > diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/platsmp.c b/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/platsmp.c > index c5e65a0..086d1e3 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/platsmp.c > +++ b/arch/arm/mach-exynos4/platsmp.c > @@ -26,6 +26,8 @@ > ?#include <asm/smp_scu.h> > ?#include <asm/unified.h> > > +#include <plat/cpu.h> > + > ?#include <mach/hardware.h> > ?#include <mach/regs-clock.h> > > @@ -170,6 +172,24 @@ void __init platform_smp_prepare_cpus(unsigned int max_cpus) > ? ? ? ? * system-wide flags register. The boot monitor waits > ? ? ? ? * until it receives a soft interrupt, and then the > ? ? ? ? * secondary CPU branches to this address. > + ? ? ? ?* > + ? ? ? ?* EVT0 has the system-wide flags register at a different > + ? ? ? ?* address, hence the following hackery... > ? ? ? ? */ > - ? ? ? __raw_writel(BSYM(virt_to_phys(exynos4_secondary_startup)), S5P_VA_SYSRAM); > + ? ? ? if (s3c_get_chip_id() & 0xF0000UL) > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? __raw_writel(BSYM(virt_to_phys(exynos4_secondary_startup)), > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?S5P_VA_SYSRAM); > + ? ? ? else { > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? void __iomem *sysram_evt0; > + > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? sysram_evt0 = ioremap(EXYNOS4_PA_SYSRAM_EVT0, SZ_4K); > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? if (!sysram_evt0) { > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? pr_err("Unable to remap EXYNOS4_PA_SYSRAM_EVT0\n"); > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? return; > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? } > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? __raw_writel(BSYM(virt_to_phys(exynos4_secondary_startup)), > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?sysram_evt0); > + ? ? ? ? ? ? ? iounmap(sysram_evt0); > + ? ? ? } > + > ?} > diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h b/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h > index c0a5741..41573cc 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h > +++ b/arch/arm/plat-samsung/include/plat/cpu.h > @@ -44,6 +44,8 @@ struct cpu_table { > ?extern void s3c_init_cpu(unsigned long idcode, > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? struct cpu_table *cpus, unsigned int cputab_size); > > +extern unsigned long s3c_get_chip_id(void); > + > ?/* core initialisation functions */ > > ?extern void s3c24xx_init_irq(void); > diff --git a/arch/arm/plat-samsung/init.c b/arch/arm/plat-samsung/init.c > index 79d10fc..320b88f 100644 > --- a/arch/arm/plat-samsung/init.c > +++ b/arch/arm/plat-samsung/init.c > @@ -30,6 +30,7 @@ > ?#include <plat/regs-serial.h> > > ?static struct cpu_table *cpu; > +static unsigned long s3c_chip_id; > > ?static struct cpu_table * __init s3c_lookup_cpu(unsigned long idcode, > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?struct cpu_table *tab, > @@ -60,6 +61,8 @@ void __init s3c_init_cpu(unsigned long idcode, > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?panic("Unsupported Samsung CPU"); > ? ? ? ?} > > + ? ? ? s3c_chip_id = idcode; > + > ? ? ? ?cpu->map_io(); > ?} > > @@ -140,6 +143,11 @@ void __init s3c24xx_init_uarts(struct s3c2410_uartcfg *cfg, int no) > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?(cpu->init_uarts)(cfg, no); > ?} > > +unsigned long s3c_get_chip_id(void) > +{ > + ? ? ? return s3c_chip_id; > +} > + > ?static int __init s3c_arch_init(void) > ?{ > ? ? ? ?int ret; > -- > 1.7.0.4 > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 13+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-06-29 5:52 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 13+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2011-05-20 13:46 [PATCH] ARM: exynos4: fix secondary CPU boot Marc Zyngier 2011-05-25 17:28 ` Kukjin Kim 2011-05-25 18:04 ` Marc Zyngier 2011-05-25 19:06 ` Kukjin Kim 2011-05-26 15:11 ` Marc Zyngier 2011-06-02 7:01 ` Kyungmin Park 2011-06-02 8:34 ` Marc Zyngier 2011-06-02 8:39 ` Kyungmin Park 2011-06-02 8:54 ` Marc Zyngier 2011-06-14 22:26 ` Angus Ainslie 2011-06-15 0:52 ` Kyungmin Park 2011-06-15 9:53 ` Marc Zyngier 2011-06-29 5:52 ` Kyungmin Park
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).