[U-Boot] [PATCH 3/9] arm: Move CP15 init out of cpu_init_crit()

Simon Glass
2011-10-25T05:02:03Z

Hi Albert,

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Albert ARIBAUD
<albert.u.boot@aribaud.net> wrote:
> Le 24/10/2011 22:14, Simon Glass a ?crit :
>
>>>> So how about I create a patch to move the cp15_init() code into
>>>> arch/arm/cpu/armv7/lib/lowlevel.S or similar so I can call it later?
>>>
>>> I don't mind moving it to armv7/lib. I do mind the "later".
>>
>> OK, but the AVP cannot execute this code, whereas the A9 needs to
>> execute it on start-up.
>
> Yes, and that's the real problem: if you did not have that AVP running the
> same code path as the A9, you wouldn't even have though of moving cp15 init
> elsewhere.

What is your point here? I am trying to get to a simple
easy-to-understand execution path in a fairly complex system. So far
the model is that the AVP starts up U-Boot until arch_cpu_init(), then
halts and the A9 takes over and runs the same code again. It is very
easy to understand and debug. It is easy to set breakpoints in startup
code on either core. It is possible to even put printf() debugging on
either core with the pre-console support. It has a lot of advantages
over more complex schemes. It removes a CONFIG_TEGRA2 from start.S
too!

>
>> We define CONFIG_SKIP_LOWLEVEL_INIT on Tegra, and the mere fact that
>> this option exists suggests that platforms are permitted to do it. We
>> don't need to do any memory init, and the CP15 init can be called in
>> arch_cpu_init() once we establish that we are an A9 and not an AVP.
>> Does that sound ok?
>
> Yes, CONFIG_SKIP_LOWLEVEL_INIT exists for a reason, but that reason is not
> "I'm running this code on two CPUs", it is "those inits have already been
> done". CONFIG_SKIP_LOWLEVEL_INITS is meant for U-Boot being loaded by SPL,
> so SPL has done the inits already.

I thought it pre-dated SPL, but ok.

>
> And I also agree that we should do the cp15 init as soon as we have checked
> that we're the A9, not the AVP.
>
> But this check has to be done during low level init, based on some immediate
> identification, not based on where in the code we are.

There is no facility in there for this at present. Are you asking for
a new call to find out at run-time whether the CP15 init should be
called? If so, then I can fairly easily do that.

>> The only problem I can see with this is if the data cache is on. This
>> could happen if you load U-Boot with (say) tftp and jump to it. Well
>> 'don't do that!'. We also hope that the D-cache has at least been
>> flushed or there is nothing we can do. One fix for this (prior to the
>> refactor you are planning and mentioned in your earlier email) is
>> perhaps to implement a run-time check for the existence of CP15. Is
>> that better or worse?
>
> According to ARM, coprocessors 14 and 15 should always be supported from
> ARMv6 up. Are you sure the AVP does not have it? If there is a Tegra
> specification available, I'd like to have a look at it.

Sorry I meant caches/MMU, etc. I should try doing the CP15 cache/MMU
init on the AVP and see what happens.

Regards,
Simon

>
>> Regards,
>> Simon
>
> Amicalement,
> --
> Albert.
>