lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Aug]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RESEND PATCH 4/4] ARM: msm: Add support for 8974 SMP
On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 11:38:44PM +0100, Rohit Vaswani wrote:
> On 8/12/2013 9:39 AM, Mark Rutland wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 03:15:25AM +0100, Rohit Vaswani wrote:
> >> Add the cpus bindings and the Kraitv2 release sequence
> >> to make SMP work for 2 cores on MSM8974.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Rohit Vaswani <rvaswani@codeaurora.org>
> >> ---
> >> Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt | 1 +
> >> arch/arm/boot/dts/msm8974.dts | 23 ++++++++
> >> arch/arm/mach-msm/board-dt-8974.c | 3 +
> >> arch/arm/mach-msm/platsmp.c | 79 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> 4 files changed, 106 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt
> >> index 1132eac..7c3c677 100644
> >> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt
> >> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/arm/cpus.txt
> >> @@ -52,6 +52,7 @@ For the ARM architecture every CPU node must contain the following properties:
> >> This should be one of:
> >> "qcom,scss"
> >> "qcom,kpssv1"
> >> + "qcom,kpssv2"
> > I guess I should've looked at the whole series before responding, that
> > answers my prior question about what variation we expect.
> >
> >>
> >> Example:
> >>
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/boot/dts/msm8974.dts b/arch/arm/boot/dts/msm8974.dts
> >> index c31c097..ef35a9b 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm/boot/dts/msm8974.dts
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/boot/dts/msm8974.dts
> >> @@ -7,6 +7,22 @@
> >> compatible = "qcom,msm8974";
> >> interrupt-parent = <&intc>;
> >>
> >> + cpus {
> >> + #address-cells = <1>;
> >> + #size-cells = <0>;
> >> + compatible = "qcom,krait";
> >> + device_type = "cpu";
> >> + enable-method = "qcom,kpssv2";
> >> +
> >> + cpu@0 {
> >> + reg = <0>;
> >> + };
> >> +
> >> + cpu@1 {
> >> + reg = <1>;
> >> + };
> >> + };
> >> +
> >> intc: interrupt-controller@f9000000 {
> >> compatible = "qcom,msm-qgic2";
> >> interrupt-controller;
> >> @@ -23,4 +39,11 @@
> >> <1 1 0xf08>;
> >> clock-frequency = <19200000>;
> >> };
> >> +
> >> + kpss@f9012000 {
> >> + compatible = "qcom,kpss";
> >> + reg = <0xf9012000 0x1000>,
> >> + <0xf9088000 0x1000>,
> >> + <0xf9098000 0x1000>;
> >> + };
> > In the previous examples, the number of CPUs was equal to the number of
> > kpss reg values. Why does it differ here. Either:
> >
> > * We always have the extra regsiter here, and it should be described
> > even if we don't use it.
> >
> > * It's a different hardware block, and needs a more specific
> > compatible string.
> >
> > Eitehr way this strengthens my feeling that we need to define the linkage
> > from a CPU to the portion of the kpss which affects it.
> Will add documentation for each of the registers. We have one for each
> CPU and one within the KPSS (Krait Processor Sub-System) e.g the L2 saw
> base in this case.

Ok.

So the previous example had no L2 saw base?

> >
> >> };
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-msm/board-dt-8974.c b/arch/arm/mach-msm/board-dt-8974.c
> >> index d7f84f2..06119f9 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-msm/board-dt-8974.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-msm/board-dt-8974.c
> >> @@ -13,11 +13,14 @@
> >> #include <linux/of_platform.h>
> >> #include <asm/mach/arch.h>
> >>
> >> +#include "common.h"
> >> +
> >> static const char * const msm8974_dt_match[] __initconst = {
> >> "qcom,msm8974",
> >> NULL
> >> };
> >>
> >> DT_MACHINE_START(MSM8974_DT, "Qualcomm MSM (Flattened Device Tree)")
> >> + .smp = smp_ops(msm_smp_ops),
> >> .dt_compat = msm8974_dt_match,
> >> MACHINE_END
> >> diff --git a/arch/arm/mach-msm/platsmp.c b/arch/arm/mach-msm/platsmp.c
> >> index 82eb079..0fdae69 100644
> >> --- a/arch/arm/mach-msm/platsmp.c
> >> +++ b/arch/arm/mach-msm/platsmp.c
> >> @@ -124,6 +124,80 @@ static int msm8960_release_secondary(unsigned int cpu)
> >> return 0;
> >> }
> >>
> >> +static int msm8974_release_secondary(unsigned int cpu)
> >> +{
> >> + void __iomem *reg;
> >> + void __iomem *l2_saw_base;
> >> + struct device_node *dn = NULL;
> >> + unsigned apc_pwr_gate_ctl = 0x14;
> >> + unsigned reg_val;
> >> +
> >> + if (cpu == 0 || cpu >= num_possible_cpus())
> >> + return -EINVAL;
> >> +
> >> + dn = of_find_compatible_node(dn, NULL, "qcom,kpss");
> >> + if (!dn) {
> >> + pr_err("%s : Missing kpss node from device tree\n", __func__);
> >> + return -ENXIO;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + reg = of_iomap(dn, cpu+1);
> > This looks very fishy given the prior patch being one off from this.
> > why is reg[0] now different?
> >
> >> + if (!reg)
> >> + return -ENOMEM;
> >> +
> >> + pr_debug("Starting secondary CPU %d\n", cpu);
> >> +
> >> + /* Turn on the BHS, turn off LDO Bypass and power down LDO */
> >> + reg_val = 0x403f0001;
> > Magic number?
> It represents the comment above it. It didnt seem clean to define 4
> different offsets with #defines within a single register for the purpose
> of 1 write.

In general I'd prefer having symbolic names, but I'm not going to argue
here.

> >
> >> + writel_relaxed(reg_val, reg + apc_pwr_gate_ctl);
> >> +
> >> + /* complete the above write before the delay */
> >> + mb();
> > Use writel?
> >
> >> + /* wait for the bhs to settle */
> >> + udelay(1);
> >> +
> >> + /* Turn on BHS segments */
> >> + reg_val |= 0x3f << 1;
> >> + writel_relaxed(reg_val, reg + apc_pwr_gate_ctl);
> >> +
> >> + /* complete the above write before the delay */
> >> + mb();
> > Use writel again?
> >
> >> + /* wait for the bhs to settle */
> >> + udelay(1);
> >> +
> >> + /* Finally turn on the bypass so that BHS supplies power */
> >> + reg_val |= 0x3f << 8;
> >> + writel_relaxed(reg_val, reg + apc_pwr_gate_ctl);
> >> +
> >> + /* enable max phases */
> >> + l2_saw_base = of_iomap(dn, 0);
> >> + if (!l2_saw_base) {
> >> + return -ENOMEM;
> >> + }
> > What?
> >
> > You've just lost your only reference to the mapping in reg.
> >
> > Why do you not do this at the start, before poking everything else? Even
> > better, do it at probe time and fail once rather than for each CPU you
> > have no chance of bringing up.
> Will do.
>
> >
> > [...]
> >> static void boot_cold_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
> >> @@ -151,6 +225,11 @@ static void boot_cold_cpu(unsigned int cpu)
> >> msm8960_release_secondary(cpu);
> >> per_cpu(cold_boot_done, cpu) = true;
> >> }
> >> + } else if (!strcmp(enable_method, "qcom,kpssv2")) {
> >> + if (per_cpu(cold_boot_done, cpu) == false) {
> >> + msm8974_release_secondary(cpu);
> >> + per_cpu(cold_boot_done, cpu) = true;
> >> + }
> >> } else {
> >> pr_err("%s: Invalid enable-method property: %s\n",
> >> __func__, enable_method);
> > The enable-method parsing really should be moved out to common code. We
> > could make it scan the enable-method if a machine has no smp ops (which
> > is more general than the PSCI fallback that's been suggested before).
> But we have smp ops like every other SoC. I might need to go back to the
> drawing board for incorporating enable-method into generic code.
> Any suggestions are appreciated.

I think we need generic infrastructure that checks if we have a NULL
smp_ops and tries to find one based on any enable-method properties in
the dt.

> If enable-method seems cumbersome to be enforced for every SoC, I would
> be comfortable using the cpu compatible string as you suggested in the
> previous patch.

I'm not sure cpu compatible string alone gives us enough, the
integration of the SoC and particular board will affect how we bring up
secondaries.

Thanks,
Mark.


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-08-16 12:01    [W:0.060 / U:0.320 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site