[U-Boot] [PATCH 05/12] sunxi: Move setting of CPU system control register SMP bit to save_boot_params

Ian Campbell
2015-01-20T08:44:49Z

On Mon, 2015-01-19 at 20:04 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 17-01-15 23:51, Ian Campbell wrote:
> > On Thu, 2015-01-15 at 15:52 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote:
> >> According to the "Cortex-A7 MPCore Technical Reference Manual":
> >>
> >> "You must ensure this bit is set to 1 before the caches and MMU are enabled,
> >> or any cache and TLB maintenance operations are performed."
> >
> > Given that this is a feature of the Cortex-A7 (actually, I believe it
> > applies to at least Cortex-A15 too) and not really specific to sunxi,
> > perhaps we can make this more generic?
>
> Strange enough the bit is different between the A7 and A15, for the A7 the docs
> say it must be set before doing anything with caches, on the A15 it only needs
> to be set for the core to accept cache management operations from other cpu
> cores (or so the docs say), which is likely why it is not in the standard
> init sequence yet, as for u-boot it seems to only be necessary to do this on
> a Cortex A7. I agree that it would be good to move this to the generic start.S
> though, Albert ?
>
>
> >
> >> Since arch/arm/cpu/armv7/start.S: cpu_init_cp15 does several cache operations,
> >> we should thus enable the SMP bit earlier, and the only chance to do that is
> >> to do it at save_boot_params time.
> >
> > Would it be so terrible to add an ifdef CORTEX_A7 here, or to call out
> > to (or call as a macro) a soc_init_cp15?
>
> From my pov no that would not be too terrible, but ...
> >
> > I'm cc-ing Albert for input these questions.
>
> That indeed is Albert's call.
>
> Note that solving this still leaves the A80 magic sram controller poke which
> also needs to happen really really early or otherwise the entire SoC just
> resets as if the watchdog has triggered, I'm fine with using save_boot_params
> for that, it is not its intended purpose, but it works fine for it, so
> I see no reason to complicate things with yet another callback.

Ideally it would be possible to do it in the same hook as sets up the
ACTLR.SMP bit.

In general I'm not a big fan of reusing unrelated hooks just because
they happen to be in a convenient location -- it leads to surprises when
you are reading through/modifying the calling code.

Ian.