From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jason Gunthorpe Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 05/12] ARM: mvebu: Remove the harcoded BootROM window allocation Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2013 13:51:11 -0600 Message-ID: <20130618195111.GC6578@obsidianresearch.com> References: <1371554737-25319-1-git-send-email-ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com> <1371554737-25319-6-git-send-email-ezequiel.garcia@free-electrons.com> <20130618173906.GC2204@obsidianresearch.com> <20130618194330.GA2394@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130618194330.GA2394@localhost> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: devicetree-discuss-bounces+gldd-devicetree-discuss=m.gmane.org-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org Sender: "devicetree-discuss" To: Ezequiel Garcia Cc: Andrew Lunn , Jason Cooper , devicetree-discuss-uLR06cmDAlY/bJ5BZ2RsiQ@public.gmane.org, Maen Suleiman , Lior Amsalem , linux-arm-kernel-IAPFreCvJWM7uuMidbF8XUB+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org, Sebastian Hesselbarth List-Id: devicetree@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 04:43:31PM -0300, Ezequiel Garcia wrote: > > I think some kind of test is needed here. As I understand it the SMP > > startup uses a trampoline in the boot rom and the boot rom *must* be > > mapped to 0xfff00000 ? > Yes, that's my understanding as well, but I will do some testing since > it should be interesting... If it is like the earlier chips you will also have the choice of something based at 0, there is a register bit that sets the reset address. > > Verifying the DT is setup this way and aborting if it is not seems > > like a good idea.. > I have no problem doing that, but to me it sounds as it's the > responsability of the one that writes the DT, no? Having the kernel enforce that the DT node is present and at the right location, I think, is helpful for the bootloader folks to ensure they write correct DTs. > Maybe this is a requirement for this SoC, but not for another... > so, why should the kernel *check* for that? The function was called armada_xp_smp_prepare_cpus - all Armada XP's will work like this.. Jason