[U-Boot] [PATCH v5] mx6: add support of multi-processor command

Wolfgang Denk
2014-07-13T09:58:21Z

Dear Gabriel Huau,

In message <1405204264-10922-1-git-send-email-contact@huau-gabriel.fr> you wrote:
> This allows u-boot to load different OS or Bare Metal application on the
> different cores of the i.MX6DQ.
> For example: we can run Android on cpu0 and a RT OS like QNX/FreeRTOS on cpu1.

Has this patch really to be specific for the quad core version? Can
we not also support the dual core version in the same way?

...
> +int cpu_reset(int nr)
> +{
> + uint32_t reg;
> + struct src *src = (struct src *)SRC_BASE_ADDR;
> +
> + reg = __raw_readl(&src->scr);
> +
> + switch (nr) {
> + case 1:
> + reg |= SRC_SCR_CORE_1_RESET_MASK;
> + break;
> +
> + case 2:
> + reg |= SRC_SCR_CORE_2_RESET_MASK;
> + break;
> +
> + case 3:
> + reg |= SRC_SCR_CORE_3_RESET_MASK;
> + break;
> + }

I feel this should not be hardwired for 4 cores, and I also think we
should avoid using such a switch statement here. All you need is an
index into an array.

> +int cpu_status(int nr)
> +{
> + uint32_t reg;
> + struct src *src = (struct src *)SRC_BASE_ADDR;
> +
> + reg = __raw_readl(&src->scr);
> +
> + switch (nr) {
> + case 1:
> + printf("core 1: %d\n", !!(reg & SRC_SCR_CORE_1_ENABLE_MASK));
> + break;
> +
> + case 2:
> + printf("core 2: %d\n", !!(reg & SRC_SCR_CORE_2_ENABLE_MASK));
> + break;
> +
> + case 3:
> + printf("core 3: %d\n", !!(reg & SRC_SCR_CORE_3_ENABLE_MASK));
> + break;
> + }

Ditto. Such code duplication does not scale. Please rework to avoid
the switch.

> + switch (nr) {
> + case 1:
> + __raw_writel(boot_addr, &src->gpr3);
> + reg |= SRC_SCR_CORE_1_ENABLE_MASK;
> + break;
> +
> + case 2:
> + __raw_writel(boot_addr, &src->gpr5);
> + reg |= SRC_SCR_CORE_2_ENABLE_MASK;
> + break;
> +
> + case 3:
> + __raw_writel(boot_addr, &src->gpr7);
> + reg |= SRC_SCR_CORE_3_ENABLE_MASK;
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + /* CPU N is ready to start */
> + __raw_writel(reg, &src->scr);

Ditto here.

And can you please explain why you are using __raw_writel() here?

> + reg = __raw_readl(&src->scr);
> +
> + switch (nr) {
> + case 1:
> + reg &= ~SRC_SCR_CORE_1_ENABLE_MASK;
> + break;
> +
> + case 2:
> + reg &= ~SRC_SCR_CORE_2_ENABLE_MASK;
> + break;
> +
> + case 3:
> + reg &= ~SRC_SCR_CORE_3_ENABLE_MASK;
> + break;
> + }
> +
> + /* Disable the CPU N */
> + __raw_writel(reg, &src->scr);

Again, please avoid the switch.

We have read-modify-write macros which you could use, unless you
really have to use the __raw_*() accessors. Why is this needed?

Best regards,

Wolfgang Denk

--
DENX Software Engineering GmbH, MD: Wolfgang Denk & Detlev Zundel
HRB 165235 Munich, Office: Kirchenstr.5, D-82194 Groebenzell, Germany
Phone: (+49)-8142-66989-10 Fax: (+49)-8142-66989-80 Email: wd at denx.de
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing." - Doug Gwyn